How Protestant Evangelicals shifted their abortion stance

Jamelle Bouie had a great piece at Slate last week explaining the long strange journey of Protestant Evangelicals from pressing for the expansion of abortion rights to vehement opposition to nearly every aspect of women’s reproductive choices. Bouie correctly identifies the trend, but he misses an important pivot point that calls the rest of his analysis into question.

Bouie correctly points out that political conservatives and Protestant evangelicals were relatively warm toward pro-choice causes until the ‘70’s. The nation’s most liberal abortion rights legislation prior to Roe v. Wade was signed into law by California Governor Ronald Reagan. Barry Goldwater was staunchly pro-choice across his entire career.

In 1971 the Southern Baptist Convention endorsed abortion rights for women in a remarkably bold statement for the time. The Baptists responded to Roe v Wade in 1974 by re-affirming their previous statement in favor of abortion rights.

The Protestant theological mainstream was described in a quote from Bouie’s main reference, a recent book by Jonathan Dudley:

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul no matter how far gestation has progressed,” wrote professor Bruce Waltke of Dallas Theological Seminary in a 1968 issue of Christianity Today on contraception and abortion, edited by Harold Lindsell, a then-famous champion of biblical “inerrancy.” His argument rested on the Hebrew Bible, “[A]ccording to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”

Bouie goes wrong in identifying Roe v. Wade as the galvanizing factor that brought Protestant Evangelicals into politics in opposition to abortion and to broader reproductive rights. Anti-abortion politics was almost exclusively the realm of Northern Catholics, mostly Democrats, into the 80’s. Why would a Supreme Court decision in favor of something they generally supported change Protestants’ views on the matter? The answer is that it wouldn’t and it didn’t.

This shift in Protestant politics was a by-product of new alliances inspired by a different controversy. It was not Roe, but an earlier Court decision that created the Religious Right.

In 1971 the Supreme Court ruled in Coit v. Green that the Federal government could revoke the tax-exempt status of private religious schools that engaged in racially discriminatory admissions. This sparked a decade-long legal fight led by Bob Jones University that resulted in defeat after defeat.

That case was the catalyst that would eventually bring a Southern Baptist TV preacher named Jerry Falwell together with a Northern Catholic political operative, Paul Weyrich, to found the Moral Majority. For years Weyrich had been working to bring religious fundamentalists into politics. His efforts were slow to gain momentum and were unaffected by Roe. The Religious Right remained an inchoate force, disorganized, derided, and unpopular in both parties until the Carter Administration gave them the fuel they needed to ignite a populist firestorm.

In the wake of Coit and the long series of Bob Jones decisions the Justice Department had the authority, but not necessarily the will, to take the campaign against school segregation into the private school market. Desegregation had brought a stampede out of public schools. In the North, Catholic parochial schools were the main beneficiary. In the South, Evangelical churches launched into this industry, providing middle and upper income families a place to hide their white kids.

In 1978 the IRS under Carter announced new rules. White private schools that had begun or rapidly expanded under segregation would have to affirmatively prove non-discrimination in order to retain their tax exempt status.

“I was trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed. What changed their mind was Jimmy Carter’s intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation.”

It is no accident that 1980 is the first year that the religious right shows up as a force in Presidential politics. It is also no accident that one of the Reagan Administration’s earliest major policy moves was the cancellation of this IRS policy.

Abortion politics, like positions on school prayer, porn, divorce law, and other religious issues followed in the wake of segregation, not the other way around. The Southern Baptists declined to take an unequivocal stand against abortion rights for almost a decade after Roe v. Wade. The culture war got its impetus from desegregation, not from abortion.

By the late ’70’s, overt race-baiting was no longer tolerated on the public stage. The forces threatened by the Carter Administration’s decision were in no position to campaign openly in favor of segregation. They needed a proxy. In time, abortion and school prayer became convenient, race-neutral rhetorical banners beneath which Southern Protestant Evangelicals and Northern Catholics could march together, however uneasily. The tensions that once divided them have not faded away entirely, but have come to matter less and less as the “culture” issues they share in common take center stage.

That awkward marriage has in time produced a unique offspring, best symbolized by Sen. Rand Paul. The modern Neo-Confederate movement has now managed to synthesize an alliance between the conservative Northern Catholics who once supported George Wallace and Southern Dixiecrats on the basis of a shared interest in religious fundamentalism and a resentment of government efforts to strip religious groups of their policy influence.

Bouie is right to point out that evangelical abortion politics has changed dramatically over a single generation, but it was school segregation, not Roe, that provided the catalyst.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

I’d not given much thought to the Hobby Lobby case until last night. The more I think about it, the more I think their argument should be that their insurance shouldn’t have to cover anything they don’t want to cover, for any reason, because it’s their company, and it’s none of the government’s business. Period. That’s the crux of the problem with Obamacare. It shouldn’t even be necessasry to bring religion into the picture at all. That’s just grasping at the religious exemption law that happens to be in place. A company should be able to cover any medication they wish, or none at all, and even invest wherever they choose to invest, no matter how inconsistent. Once they tried to use the religious freedom argument about contraceptives, of course, they opened themselves up to charges of inconsistency in their company policy, which shoots down their argument based strictly on religious freedom.

I feel that a company should not be obligated to provide heath care coverage for its employees. It should be part of a voluntary salary package, like an extra benefit. I see no correlation between one’s job and one’s health care coverage. It’s like demanding that your landlord include health care as part of your lease. The problem is that once it became common practice among employers, it became something that was expected, and now mandatory.

That said, I do feel that if a company chooses to offer health care coverage, then it should be meted out fairly, with no discrimination toward any employees, under Equal Protection. And I do support regulation over things that can actively cause harm to individuals and the environment, safety standards and the like, but withohlding coverage of a certain medication does not cause direct harm, since the medication can be obtained by other means. The employee is not being prevented from getting the medication, just not from Hobby Lobby’s insurer.

Hobby Lobby should have argued that it shouldn’t be obligated to provide any coverage it doesn’t want, for any reason, simply because it’s their company, their business. Period. To accept having your company policy dictated like this sets a precedent, and opens the door to even more intrusion.

Tuttabella – If you feel that an employer should not offer insurance then what is your answer? If you have ever dealt with any type of medical issue you would know that getting care without insurance is EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE ( and I don’t know about you but I can’t pay for a $5000.00 MRI out of pocket let alone pay for a drug that costs $100.00+ per prescription and many of the newer medications still are not available as a cheaper generic alternative ), if you are a low to middle income person then you are at risk of either going WITHOUT care or going BANKRUPT.

Is the best solution to making sure that people in this country get healthcare without going BANKRUPT a single payer type system? Up until the implementation of the Affordable Care Act private health insurance was out of reach for many low wage workers, those without insurance ended up relying on the care they would receive from a hospital emergency room ( putting a tremendous strain on emergency health care in many areas not to mention the cost to the taxpayer – emergency rooms can’t turn people away and most of the bills end up going unpaid ) or just went without getting treatment .

The health insurance policies that most companies offer are part of a total compensation package and are considered to be part of the employee’s wages – and the employee pays for at least half of their coverage ( next time check your paycheck and compare what you pay into your insurance against what your employer pays ). Insurance is not a freebie that is just given to one’s employee’s – despite what some people believe. Offering insurance to one’s employee’s is good business sense. If the people who work for you are healthy then their productivity will go up.

As for Hobby Lobby it seems that their objections to birth control is only when they have to offer insurance that covers it – it does not seem to affect any of their decisions on who they have their 401 (k) providers invest in:

Employer provided health insurance, if it is offered, is part of the compensation. The employer and employee discuss compensation during the hiring process. If heatlh insurance, vacation and paid holidays are not part of the package, higher wages/salary are expected.

No, an MRI does not cost $5,000, and the usual office visit would be around $65. That would hardly bankrupt anybody. If that would bankrupt you, maybe you are spending too much on other things.

Tutt, I intitially thought that was Hobby Lobby’s argument but the ACA was ruled constitional in 2012 so I don’t think they would have had a case. They also do have the option to not provide health insurance and pay the fine. I understand the argument that Government should not intrude on private businesses but in order for us to have any labor rights at all they kind of have to. Love it or hate it, without Government enforcement there are no individual freedoms.

Intrigued, to a certain extent, yes, if it’s job-related, such as with wages and safety on the job, but I see no connection between your job and your health care. How far should employers go to provide for their employees’ well-being? Buy their groceries? That’s my argument here. It does make good business sense, to keep your workers healthy, to be competitive in getting the best workers, but it should be optional, not mandatory. I know it’s currently the law, but it’s in such a state of flux I don’t consider it etched in stone.

Intrigued, you are making the argument against individual freedoms, not in favor of them. You are advocating government destruction of individual liberty and rights. The only “freedom” you seek is your freedom to force others to serve and obey you.

Individual plans without Government and Business intrusion would be great but were only available to the healthy not the sick who really needed it. Group policies are the only solution that balances the cost of the sick with the savings from the healthy. So we can have the Government establish one large group policy or have employers establish several smaller group policies. The Government’s solution has always been a single payer system but opposition lobbied for employer sponsored plans. The opposition won and this is the “compromise”.

I see your point Tutt but it only makes me wonder if a single payer plan might have made more sense.

Intrigued, that’s always the problem with many on the left, they can never understand nor accept equal rights for all. they always feel that somebody should have more rights than others, and others should have fewer or weaker rights. You want to demand serrvices and goods from others, to have them serve your whims and to control them, and if they refuse, you claim your rights are being violated.

Texan, political blogs are like that, no matter who you’re arguing with. There is no resolution, no closure. As you aptly put it the other day here: “We’ve been through this 100 times.” I would say more than 100, but who’s counting?

Tutt – The link between health insurance and employment is a historical anachronism and we’d be better off without it. I have been less than thrilled with my single employer-provided option at times, but there are no practical alternatives (and Sternn, don’t post something stupid about how I could choose to drop $10k a year on family coverage if I didn’t like my heavily subsidized employer option).

There are two problems with this: first, does anyone believe that H.L. or similar companies would raise the salaries of those affected to compensate for no longer offering insurance? So basically this would be a windfall for the owners at the expense of the employees. Second, a risk in doing that, however, is that left to their own devices many people would make the cheapest possible decisions on insurance plans, leaving them in the same financial position when a catastrophic illness occurs. The ACA, in setting minimum standards, addresses that problem to some degree.

So I am sympathetic to the argument that Hobby Lobby shouldn’t have to provide insurance, but this is greatly tempered because their entire case is built on a BS assumption that they shouldn’t have to follow the same employment laws as everyone else because of the religious beliefs of the majority owners of a corporation. Where does this stop? Could I have a moral objection to overtime pay? To hiring women? To safety standards?

Yes, John, when negotiating for a job without benefits the person goes for higher pay. I have been through that process on a few occasions. If you don’t want to hire women, don’t hire women. If you don’t want to pay overtime, don’t allow the employees to work over time.

What is it about individual liberty and rights that sets you so much against them? Is it a fear that somebody might make a different choice than you? Is it a need to control people? Is it a desire for something that you feel others should be forced to serve and provide you that thing or those things? Or is it a fear of making your own choices because you do not trust yourself, that you homnestly trust politicians in the federal government more than yourself?

Nice try at evasion and misdirection, Sternn. Not hiring women, paying OT, or adhering to safety standards are all currently illegal. You may disagree with that, oh vaunted libertarian, but that is a separate argument. Why should Hobby Lobby get to pick and choose which labor laws they will follow and which they have suddenly discovered are inconvenient?

They didn’t suddenly discover some old laws are inconvenient. The democrats have imposed new laws that violate freedom of religion. Not all laws are good, many need to be challenged and defeated. Laws violating freedom of religion fit that catagory.

So now Stern you are choosing to ignore the facts about the Hobby Lobby case that you acknowledged yesterday. To to top it off you are ranting about individual liberty and rights in the same comment that you advocate gender discrimination in the workplace. Wow and you wonder why people accuses you of being a racist, sexist, and delusional.

Intrigued, I have always been consistent that you should be free to choose whom you associate with, whom you do business with and whom you hire. It is only the government, any level of government, that should be restricted from any form of discrimination.

They object to contraceptive means that might act post-conception (i.e., in the nut job world, would be abortifacent). Several very widely used methods, including the pill and IUD can (though do not always) work by blocking implantation. They are seeking to impose their corporate medical wisdom on the freedom of their employees to chose the best contraception option for them.

“They are seeking to impose their corporate medical wisdom on the freedom of their employees to chose the best contraception option for them.”

Another false claim from you, John. They are not seeking to impose anything on anybody. They are fighting against having the cost of those choices imposed on them, against tehir religious beliefs. Their employees can still use any type of contraception they desire, but they have to pay for it on their own. as usual with the left, you claim that if it isn;t given out freely to you, at the expense of others, you are being denied services nad products.

Apparently according to the 2000 EEOC ruling on contraception all employers, including Hobby Lobby, that offer a prescription drug plan have been required to cover all contraceptive devices offered since December 2000. How can Hobby Lobby now claim religious objections when they had no problem covering ALL contraception devices for the past 13+ years?

“Respondents’ coverage must extend to the full range of prescription contraceptive choices. Because the health needs of women may change — and because different women may need different prescription contraceptives at different times in their lives — Respondents must cover each of the available options for prescription contraception. Moreover, Respondents must include such coverage in each of the health plan choices that it offers to its employees.”

Interesting. In answer to the question you posed, Hobby Lobby did some research and found that they had been covering emergency contraceptives. They callled the insurance company to have that coverage revoked. Probably should have a done a bit more homework up front, but there is your answer.

I would say it’s a “baby” when it can live outside the womb without machines breathing for it and looks relatively human. A fertilized egg does not resemble a human being in the least and that is when IUD’s and morning after pills are used.

A.D.A.M., the firm that writes medical entries for the National Institutes of Health Web site, deleted passages suggesting emergency contraceptives could disrupt implantation. The Times, which uses A.D.A.M.’s content on its health Web page, updated its site. The medical editor in chief of the Web site for the Mayo Clinic, Dr. Roger W. Harms, said “we are champing at the bit” to revise the entry if the Food and Drug Administration changes labels or other agencies make official pronouncements.

“These medications are there to prevent or delay ovulation,” said Dr. Petra M. Casey, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Mayo. “They don’t act after fertilization.”

The F.D.A. declined to discuss decisions about the effect on implantation or to say whether it would consider revising labels. But Erica Jefferson, an F.D.A. spokeswoman, acknowledged: “The emerging data on Plan B suggest that it does not inhibit implantation. Less is known about Ella. However, some data suggest it also does not inhibit implantation.”

Scientists say the pills work up to five days after sex, primarily stalling an egg’s release until sperm can no longer fertilize it. Although many people think sperm and egg unite immediately after sex, sperm need time to position themselves.

Diana Blithe, a biochemist who oversees contraception research for the National Institutes of Health, the federal agency for medical research, said the possibility of an effect on implantation should not be cited on the labels. “As a scientist, I would definitely take it off of emergency contraception,” she said.

So Cappy acknowledges it IS all about race. It’s more outrageous when the Black guy tells you to do it. Otherwise it wasn’t even worth doing a basic check of their policy.

Just like when the Republican Congressman Fred Upton co-sponsored the bill phasing out incandescent bulbs under the George W. Bush administration and when Obama publicly supported that initiative, promptly voted (but failed) to repeal that initiative.

Cap we have been over this a hundred times, you never seem to admit that it is no differant than fertilized eggs that never attach naturally . Women abort fertalized eggs all the dam time . Is she killing all those “Babies” ?

GG, quit with the emotional stuff. A person comes into existence when conceived. That is a fact. There is a difference between dying a natural death and being deliberately killed. That is a fact. Maybe your emotions or something else will not allow you to accept the facts and reality?

No, Sternn, you are wrong. Sorry. A fertilized egg is not a “human” yet. It has the potential but it’s not a person. I know you think you are an expert in everything but you simply aren’t. Are you a sociopath? You seem to have little regard for any woman not in your personal sphere. You display a rather bizarre lack of compassion, a lot of callousness and a total lack of empathy that is really creepy towards women.

No, I did not call a person a squirrel. Stating, “Squirel” means a person is distracted, losing focus, being distracted …

Anyway, prove that you are a human being. You seem to be suggestion that a person is not a human being until birth. Does that mean one minute before birth they are a frog or a fish or an inanimate object? I question the idea that you are a human being.

GG, are you serious? You decide who is or is not human base on how they look? And what is this about scientologists? You seem to know quite a bit about that but not when a human life begins? What were you before you left the womb? A puppy maybe? Or maybe as some suggest, you were not human until five or six years of age when you became self aware?

You want it to be legal ti kill people based on awareness or the way they look. Not really any different than slave owners in the old days. Maybe some people have the opinion that non-whites are not human. Do you dare to infringe on their “rights”?

Very pathetic on your part. Pathetic company you keep, very much like the KKK. No thanks.

GG, it seemed callous when you joked that the fetus in a sonogram looked like an alien, and you got like 20 thumbs up, so it seems your view has lots of support. Also, it seems creepy that you strongly support genetics research being used to strive for just the right hair and eye color, to weed out imperfections. Very Twilight Zonish.

Tutt, I don’t advocate picking and choosing hair and eye color. I merely pointed out that in the future there was a possibility of “designer” babies. I have no clue if anyone would actually that though. I think it would be great if inherited diseases and things like autism could be nipped in the bud though.

The Plan B emergency contraceptive does not have time to affect the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation. The normal birth control pill over the course of the month has a big impact on the lining of the uterus (thus most women have significantly lighter periods when on the pill). The lining does not become as thick and is thus much less hospitable to the fertilized egg.

This is a group of folks that not only is wrong in the argument against emergency contraception, they are wrong about why they are against it, and they are wrong when they say, “we do not object to the birth control pill”.

It would actually be difficult to find a way to be more incorrect on this issue, but hey, let’s see if we get folks trying to be more wrong in the replies.

Just out of curiosity Sternn where is your info regarding healthcare in Canada and the UK coming from? I have friends and family in the UK and other parts of Europe and none of them have any complaints about their healthcare. One friend just had radiation for breast cancer and there were no long waits as many claim and she received excellent care and is now in full recovery and they didn’t have to go broke getting treatment like the friend here in the US who got pancreatic cancer (rest in peace G). I’ve read Australians praising their system.

I wouldn’t believe everything some media outlet with an agenda puts out but actually talking to people from those countries. There’s a reason why America is not #1 in quality of life ratings.

GG, from the people I’ve spoken to from Canada and the UK, what strikes me as interesting is how they see their health care policies as totally normal. One gentleman from the UK casually told me in October that he looked forward to receiving his hearing aid, which would be ready in March. No complaints about the wait time. That’s just the way it is, and it’s considered normal. My friend from Canada mentioned how her neighbor was deathly ill in the hospital with respiratory problems, and how the doctor determined it was time to pull the plug. I asked if the wife had any say in the matter, and she said, Of course not. She didn’t think anything of it. A lot depends on what you’re used to. The same could probably be said about us here.

I’m sure my step-father could have waited for his hearing aids for a few months if they were free or at least low cost. They had to pay thousands for them and most insurance here does not cover hearing aids. I guess they don’t consider hearing to be necessary. Not sure if he could have gotten them from the VA since he lost his hearing from Vietnam but for some reason he hates the VA.

One other thing that the UK does that I think is good is home visits for new mothers. They make sure the mother is caring for the baby and check the babies health at home instead of making them lug the kid around town in the first few weeks.

GG, the gentleman from the UK was bragging how he wouldn’t have to pay the usual income tax rate of 50% while he was working overseas. So, no, health care is not free when you have to pay such a high tax rate.

As for the house calls, they’re great if they’re optional. Your comment about “making sure the mother is caring for her baby” implies it’s mandatory, like a visit from Child Protective Services. That strikes me as overly intrusive.

Cappy, listening to you rehashing your same lies is getting quite tedious. All the ACA “horror stories” touted by Fox have been investigated and debunked as slanted half truths and outright lies. And lots of insurance policies have been canceled (for no f-ing reason whatsoever) since waaaaay before Obamacare but no whining from the right there. Yes, non employer sponsored policies sooo “affordable” you refused to get one.

Yes Bubba, the policies I looked at while without employer provided insurance were running about $85 per month. They are nuch more expensive because of the PPACA and all the new requirements. And no, policies were not getting canceled because they were made illegal before the PPACA.

What was the annual deductible Cappy? And limits of coverage? There was a reason why they were eliminated. They were scams.

And I can tell you that employer sponsored policies WERE canceled constantly. They changed just about annually for my entire 2 decades plus of employer sponsored insurance with multiple companies. So don’t tell me what was or wasn’t true for me.

High deductables. It was what insurance is supposed to be, catastrophic coverage. You don’t have home owner’s isurance to pay to vacume your house, you donlt have car insurance pay for filling the tank with gasoline.

People in Canada have had to sue over wait periods. Women in the UK are denied drugs for breast cancer. I worked with people from Canada and people in Canada. They were the most vocal against socialized health care. Those that still lived in Canada were trying to get relocated to the States for better health care, lower taxes and cheaper energy.

Sternn that was ONE drug. My insurance won’t cover every drug either without a huge co-pay. My friend who died of pancreatic cancer (self-employed with minimal insurance) had to pay in the thousands for each one of his treatments necessitating a fundraising event.

Your insurance might not cover some drugs, but you can still buy them on your own. That is not the case when it is government run, the governemnt can deny you access to the drugs. A government run system can deny you care. That is why people from other contries that are denied come here and pay cash for health care.

Apparently most Canadians are happy. Nothing is perfect and, of course, there are complaints. That is inevitable.

I hate that I have to have mandatory blood work every six months for a routinely prescribed medication I’m on. I hate that I have to order ointment for my mild psoriasis from an overseas pharmacy because here it costs me $500/tube and isn’t available over the counter like it is in Spain for less than $10.

There are always wait times, issues with drug approvals and decisions regarding allocating scarce resources no matter what system of delivery of medical care is used. A Texas actor just won an Oscar for playing the part of a man who went around ‘the system’ in order to show a faulty system (in this case, the FDA) how to operate better. The necessity for Improvements in all of these things will always exist and the desperate needs of those stricken with terrible disease won’t go away.

But you expect people to have thousands and thousands to spend on insurance they don;t want or need and probably can’t afford. And if they don’t spend all that money, threaten them with loss of property and possible prison terms.

More horsecrap. My last job half my group worked in Calgary and none of them were dissatisfied with their health care. That is why you do not see any serious movements in industrialized countries to rid themselves of socialized medicine. Even the two places most closely associated to libertarian success stories have socialized medicine, Singapore and Hong Kong..

“Unfortunately, Canada is one of the few developed countries with universal health care systems where patients face long waits for necessary care,” says the report, aptly titled “No Time for Complacency.”

Fifty – According to your article Canada ranked second to last in health care standards and the US came in last. Seems to me the Canadians are doing a crap job but at least it is better than us and at half the price.

Their system is not perfect but they are doing something about it. But can you honestly say our system is any better? Wait times are horrendous in emergency rooms around the nation especially in impoverished areas.

This bullshit again, Sternn? You are posting an example of people who refused to pay taxes for a decade and held an armed standoff against federal agents as an example of how the IRS can arrest people. You have been shown numerous times the explicit language forbidding the IRS from using liens or criminal charges to collect the ACA penalty.

The drug in Sternn’s one example is herceptin. It costs $70,000 for a course of treatment and is not all that efficacious. Anyone British citizen denied this treatment at home and who has the $70k needed to buy it can afford a $700 plane ticket to New York.

That[‘s your solution to social health care, John? Refuse to provide the care? Let them go to another country even though their taxes were collected to provide them with health care in their own country? Ad that is what you want for us here?

“Your insurance might not cover some drugs, but you can still buy them on your own. That is not the case when it is government run, the governemnt can deny you access to the drugs. A government run system can deny you care. That is why people from other contries that are denied come here and pay cash for health care.”

Gee…wonder why I posted that Brits could come here to buy herceptin, since you explicitly suggested that for Americans whose paid insurance denied them access.

Here we are, or were, free to buy insurance that would cover those drugs. And here we are not forced into a social health care system, taxed to pay for it, and then denied actual care by our government. Notice the differences, John?

No, frankly, I don’t, Sternn. My choice of insurance is to take what my employer offers, which is one company, or forgo this benefit and pay out of pocket for private plans which in the past have usually been more expensive. Needless to say, my employer will share $0 of the savings from not buying me insurance with me in the form of a pay raise. If I were to discover that my insurance company did not offer access to herceptin or any other drug needed to treat an acute illness, my ability to switch providers to one that did – even if willing to pay out of pocket – was exactly 0 (pre-ACA, now I’m not sure). This is technically a “choice” but in reality my health insurance options are made for me by faceless bureaucrats. The fact that these are in Austin or Dallas rather than Washington makes utterly no difference to anyone not trying to ride the razor’s edge of outrage.

No, John, you didn’t quite grasp it. Insurance comapnies are private organizations (or were before the PPACA, now they are government agents). You could pick and choose what coverage you wanted according to price and your desire for coverage. Nobody was forced to participate. It was a free choice, people chose and could reap the rewards or suffer the consequences. Politicians were not involved.

In socialist systems, there is no freedom, and it is politicians that make the choices for you and you would have no say in the matter, except to go to asnother country for care.

The vast majority of people with private insurance get it through their employer, which offers at best a few (in my case, one) option. Like me, their choice is to take it or leave it. This is not a choice, it is not a market, and it offers few benefits for the “consumer.”

I have a large number of colleagues from Canada and Europe, especially the UK. We do medical research, so this has come up in conversation and they – literally – laugh when asked if they’d prefer a more privately run system like ours. The British love to complain about the NHS – it’s basically a national sport – but they would not trade it for ours.

Exactly John. The Brits do a bit of “whinging” and moaning but wouldn’t trade it for our system at all.

Tutt, what may seem intrusive to you may save an infant from abuse and mistreatment from an otherwise immature or unfit parent. The tax rate is higher over there but they have a social safety net, which I know you and Sternn hate, but it actually is necessary in a civilized country.

I used to work for a Norwegian shipping company of none of the Europeans working there were clamoring to stay here. Far better quality of life over there.

GG, I have never said I hate the social safety net. Do not lump me in with Cap. I support a social safety net, as long as it’s not overly intrusive, or makes us overly dependent. And it’s not about the money, either, before you start accusing me of being greedy.

Having some direct experience with the Canada side of the issue, I’ll offer the following:

The Canadian healthcare system is great if you break your leg, or have a baby, a respiratory infection, or require any one of hundreds of routine treatments and procedures. if you need a cardiac cath lab procedure, an MRI, or most other sophisticated diagnostic or treatment procedures, you’re going to wait in line. Most times, a very long line.

Is this fact much discussed in Canadian circles? Ah, nope. Why not? Well, for one thing, it’s down right unpatriotic. Listen: it is not possible to divorce nationalism from the healthcare debate. Do Canadians admit, when pressed, to deficiencies in their system? Yes they do. Would they trade it for ours? Not on your life. Is that a judgement based completely on the facts? No it isn’t.

And make no mistake about this, either; we lucky citizens on America are in no way immune from nationalistic bias either. And that bias helps to contribute constructively to the debate on this side of the border no more than it does on the other.

Tutt, in answer to your question, not personally, because I have fairly good insurance and great access to health care in the largest medical center in the world. I believe a system like the UK would be generally preferable to what we have here now, which is greatly unequal and which poses substantial economic costs and the individual and national level. I think we could do even better than that, however, with a public-private hybrid. The ACA is a bad version of what other countries, like Switzerland, have implemented.

“Unfortunately, Canada is one of the few developed countries with universal health care systems where patients face long waits for necessary care,” says the report, aptly titled “No Time for Complacency.”

Fifty – According to your article Canada ranked second to last in health care standards and the US came in last. Seems to me the Canadians are doing a crap job but at least it is better than us and at half the price.

Their system is not perfect but they are doing something about it. But can you honestly say our system is any better? Wait times are horrendous in emergency rooms around the nation especially in impoverished areas.

The question is too simple. Better by what measure? Wait times? Yes. Access to sophisticated and timely diagnostics? Yes. Cost? No. Would I trade my insurance coverage to be under OHIP? No. Can everyone here afford my coverage? No. Is coverage here more disparate based on economics? Yes

It’s a complex question that does not lend itself to an easy, one-word answer. Attempting to frame the debate in such a fashion is a good part of the problem/.

Turtles also wrote, “Their system is not perfect but they are doing something about it.”

Turtles, old pal, to this statement I can offer nothing constructive other than to say that the act of simply “doing something”, in and of itself, as a solution to any problem, is so logically flawed I have no words.

Size of the insured pool which socializes costs and spreads the pain or government mandated boards which control costs and decide who gets which treatment. Door 1, Door 2. Our ‘system’ as it were before Obamacare of depending on jobs to provide health insurance went aground when so many of us became ‘free agents’ and no longer are tethered to the corporate teat–which is great for the skilled and less so for the high school drop out.

We were going to have to move away from employer subsidized medical insurance anyway, which was great insurance at lower cost at Megatron Inc, with 10,000 employees and a little worse at BigAssGas Co, 34 employees. To go to an ‘everyone is in it on their own’ is fine if everyone is actually in it, with subsidies for those who aren’t as lucky ducky as you and I.

Does Canada determine pay for doctors–I don’t want to google around and become a Canadian health care blogger, but the wait issue as described in Fitties article seems to be a lack of access due to lack of doctors in specialties? Is there not enough return in making investment in medical equipment to justify cost?

First off, if Obama can waive, change or adjust Obamacare by fiat, what makes you think punishing people for not having insurance through the mighty arm of the IRS can’t be ordered? I know. You believe in Obama no matter how many times he lies to us.

Secondly, if you have a spot on your lung or other body part in Canada, sitting on a long waiting list for an MRI is a terrible thing for mind and body.

And for anyone who has a doctor make you wait months to see you, well, what can I say about someone that would do that? Psst! I don’t believe it.

Obamacare is flawed in a major way. For anyone to suggest that we need to get more government involved in a single paying system is delusional. The polls are in. Americans hate Obamacare.

Obamacare was put in to address the 15 million without insurance. So the majority now has to suffer by having their plans change, cancel or doctor’s change.

Interesting and absolutely right, there is virtually no complaining about Medicare in this country because, ‘we are forced in it’ or because it actually delivers a product that is relatively cheap due to market power of Medicare? I wonder how many of the recipients receive greater than their contribution?

Well fitty, thanks for the nuanced outlook but unfortunately the US healthcare system can be boiled down to bumper sticker length meme. If you can afford it, it’s great. If you can’t you’re SOL.

And as Turtles noted, dead last AND way too expensive is about as crappy as it gets. Especially considering that we are a “civilized Western society” and the “last remaining superpower”.

And not affording it encompasses most of the middle class even with current insurance.

So you can imagine what the poor have. Even with the lovely “free” ER care. Might as well pre-empt the usual right wing knee jerk response for “health care” for the poor.

And per your article, the Canadian system may be crappy too but none in the study are as bad as the US. So let’s model ourselves after #’s 1-5 which are in order The Netherlands, UK (mentioned here as a model), Australia, and New Zealand. I have no problem with that. Especially since none of the top 6 are private run insurance only per the US model . And even the US already has government run Medicare (which apparently buzzy won’t hypocritically give up as he rails against the “government run health care” ) and Medicaid.

CaptSternn says:
April 2, 2014 at 12:46 pm
“I see, Fifty. Of course self employed people already had the option of buying health insurance before the PPACA. I looked into it when I was self employed, but opted out.”

That’s riiiiiight Cappy. Hence the AFFORDABLE Care Act. Which resulted in cheaper insurance for contractors and the self employed. And no denials for no damn reason whatsoever. As Crogged noted.

Yes they do, in a very direct way. It goes like this; while all physicians are either self-employed, or work in public hospitals, they are all paid by the government. A laborer who works on the only farm in town can call himself an ‘independent contractor’ all day long, but he still works for the farmer. And the farmer determines how much he’ll pay for services.

Is there a shortage of specialists because of this? Definitely. Many practice in the border states.

The situation is little different than physicians providing service to Medicare patients, with the exception that here they are free to trade lower, (or no) profit time in the form of higher rates for non-Medicare patients.

Thanks Fifty and in my mind the odds of a Canadian delivery system occurring in the US went from “h*ll no” to “no f___g way.” Which political party in Canada is going to say “And I pledge to RAISE YOUR DOCTOR’S PAY!” insert non existent audience applause here…………..

CaptSternn says:
April 2, 2014 at 1:07 pm
“They [the WHO] just said our system isn’t fair because people have to pay for what they use.”

Again, Cap’s outlook is “screw the poor; they don’t matter if they can’t pay”. Except when he’s one of them and (just like the rest of the poor) doesn’t pay what he doesn’t have and squeals like a stuck pig about it when the government comes calling.

But he’s not one of them now and has a willfully short and warped memory so “screw them now! I ain’t one of them blood sucking leeches! (anymore)”.

Sorry, but that statement is about as inaccurate, (or as lease as imprecise), as the others. Government-provided or funded health care was about half of all healthcare expenses *before* the ACA.

While it is true that there were those who could not afford private insurance, or even get it as a result of pre-existing conditions, the mass of people, i.e. Medicare recipients, (who could most definitely not afford the private option), were doing just fine. The entire argument for the ACA was framed around the 25 million or so uninsured. Last I checked there were over 310 million citizens. In other words, about 8% of the population.

Look – our system is broken, way too expensive, and unfair. That is not the debate here. That would make a good bumper sticker. Suggesting literally anything else would be better is a simple sound bite.

Difficult question Tutt. I have no idea how long they do the checks in the UK. I’d would think that by 6 months they’d have a good idea whether you’re capable of taking care of one or spotting any possible problems.

“First off, if Obama can waive, change or adjust Obamacare by fiat, what makes you think punishing people for not having insurance through the mighty arm of the IRS can’t be ordered? I know. You believe in Obama no matter how many times he lies to us.” -Kabuzz the paranoid

Because the law allows the administration, specifically the Secretary of HHS (of whichever administration is in office), to determine a lot of details about its implementation. This is written explicitly into the law. So when you say Obama is changing it by fiat, that is perfectly, 100% in accordance with the law.

No, Bubba, you still missed it. Individuals could by policies without an employer being involved, affordable policies. Some six million of those policies got canceled last year due to Obamacare, and those people are going to have to pay higher premiums for less coverage. You don’t only want to screw the poor, you want to screw everybody. But that would be more “fair” according to the W.H.O..

fiftyohm says:
April 2, 2014 at 1:39 pm
”Look – our system is broken, way too expensive, and unfair. That is not the debate here. That would make a good bumper sticker. Suggesting literally anything else would be better is a simple sound bite.”

Point taken fitty. We could do worse with some proposals. But again to Turtles’ point and disputing Queen Nancy Reagan again, you can’t just sit back and “just say no” to everything and call it a solution. Despite those exact efforts of the current House.

So unscraping that bumper sticker, we needed to do something halfway decent as a start and got it with the ACA, warts and all. We just now need Hillary to finish the job she started in the 90’s and bat clean up with improving the ACA in 2017. 😉

Cappy, listening to you rehashing your same lies is getting quite tedious. All the ACA “horror stories” touted by Fox have been investigated and debunked as slanted half truths and outright lies. And lots of insurance policies have been canceled (for no f-ing reason whatsoever) since waaaaay before Obamacare but no whining from the right there. Yes, non employer sponsored policies sooo “affordable” you refused to get one.

Funny, how the commenters on the left side of the aisle now agree Obamacare is problematic to say the least.

Conservatives are for the pre existing condition waiving.

The Obamacare policies are built for catastrophic issues. Deductibles are in the $5,000.00+ range which means there is no co pay for anything until the deductible is met. Average price-$380.00. So is you can get someone to put in around $4500.00 + meet the deductible, they are out about 10K in one year. Affordable my ass.

This is why not a lot of people are signing up for it. Cheaper to pay out of pocket.

If you ask me, (and I think you did), the ‘just say noers’ sat on both sides of the aisle – none with the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the big pharma lobby and demand negotiated drug costs and advertizing regulation, or the AMA, or the insurance lobby, or the ABA. These things would begin to address the central problem of affordability and costs, as well and access. So would interstate competition. So would public awareness that healthcare is a scarce resource and is therefore not in infinite supply. What we have now is a bullshit and indefensible hodgepodge of embedded interests, all of whom stand to gain at the expense of all of the rest of us.

And by the way, HillaryCare was a single-payer system bearing little similarity to the ACA. And it didn’t address any of the issues above either.

fiftyohm says:
April 2, 2014 at 3:44 pm
“And by the way, HillaryCare was a single-payer system bearing little similarity to the ACA.

Yup, that’s what I meant fitty. It’s single payer for Medicare and Medicaid just need to finish off the 3rd leg of that triad. 😮

“And it didn’t address any of the issues above either.”

Baby steps fitty. Didn’t the sheer volume and weight of the revenue from the Medicare/Medicaid program allow the Federal government to lower the negotiated rates? With the current loophole of the lucrative revenues from the larger 3rd leg of insurance, hospitals and doctors can decline providing those services for the more lucrative private insurance market where their rates are way higher. When that well runs dry under single payer, there are not enough of the super rich on private Cadillac health plans for doctors and hospitals to sniff at providing affordable services for most of us.

Fitty, not sure how single payer would continue to ensure big pharma gouging us for cost of medicine. They can for now because the unholy alliance was necessary to pass the ACA. Pharmaceutical companies could have easily paid off Democrats in the House and Senate to quash it if it suited them. They knew they didn’t need to pay anyone on the rabid right to try to scuttle it. So yeah they were “induced” to stay on the sidelines and play Switzerland in the battle for their ultimate payoff of big profits (temporarily hopefully) of expanded insurance for the masses.

“Negotiating with Big Pharma” is exactly what Medicare does and because it represents a large market, it is a formidable negotiator. Listen we have two choices, single payer or everyone in the market using fungible (generally the same) insurance products. Every other medical delivery system in comparable nations works from one or a combination of the two with substantial government intervention.

Crogged, there are more than two choices. We had dozens if not hundreds of choices before. Choice is not what the left wants, except the choice to kill people for convenience. Less government intervention is better. FYI, the power to negotiate comes with the power to deny, to refuse care or drugs.

“Negotiating with Big Pharma” is exactly what Medicare does and because it represents a large market” – Crogged

Crogged- You really need to know that that asinine Medicare Part D legislation brought to you by our last spendthrift Republican administration specifically prohibits negotiation by the government on drug prices with the industry. Your statement is objectively false.

The results can be seen in the difference Medicare pays for drugs compared to the VA or the state-run Medicaid programs. Some estimates place this windfall to the industry over the next 10 years at over a half-trillion dollars. (Yes, read that again – I said trillion.)

The reason Medicare isn’t allowed to negotiate is because part of the negotiation is denial. That would mean the federal government not covering a lot of drugs, just as the VA doesn’t cover a lot of drugs. That means veterans are often denied coverage and have to pay out of pocket.

Stern, Enron the corporation did not go to jail. Individuals with full personhood rights did go to jail but not the corporation. Corporations want full personhood rights without any of the risks. It’s absurd!

Speaking of corporations and their “person hood” and religious rights how about this from the “moral” and religious objections of the case before the Supreme Court,

“The owners of Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned craft supply chain, were so offended by the idea of having to include emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices in their health insurance plans that they sued the Obama administration and took the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. But Mother Jones reported on Tuesday that the company’s retirement plan has invested millions of dollars in the manufacturers of emergency contraception and drugs used to induce abortions.

The companies Hobby Lobby invests in include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan B morning-after pill and ParaGard, a copper IUD, as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2. Hobby Lobby’s mutual funds also invest in two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in their health care policies.”

Now that’s interesting. The company pays minute attention to a the details of employee health insurance, especially those parts associated with our sitting president, but not so much to investments that grow their 401K plan.

You mean they allow their emplyees to choose to invest in those companies? That is not inconsistent with their views. Though they do not want to pay for certain coverages, they have not moved to fire employees that go out and buy contraceptives anyway. Though they oppose abortion, I have not heard that they would fire an employee that had an abortion.

How many of you who ardently believe in global warming invest in mutual funds which contain shares in energy companies? I would venture to guess that most of you (if not all) who have a 401K or IRA own shares in an oil company or a company that mines coal.

I believe that most of us have a personal tipping point when it comes to objecting to issues on moral grounds. For example, years ago, I worked at a hospital where abortions were done. I had no problem associating with doctors or nurses who did the procedure. I would never, ever look down or judge a woman who had an abortion. However, when it came to actually working in the rooms abortions were done, I declined for religious reasons. I’ll note, that at the time, almost all the nurses – even the nonreligious ones – suddenly became religious,The hospital had to hire extra nurses to work specifically on days abortions were performed to insure the doctors had an operating team.

If I were to go back to work today, I would not choose to have any connection to a hospital or clinic with ties to abortion. A lot has changed since I worked In my twenties. My own pregnancies and increased knowledge of fetal development, have made me more pro-life and changed my personal tipping point.

Do I own shares in a S&P mutual fund? Sure, I realize that I probably do own stock in pharmaceutical companies that manufacture abortion inducing drugs. But, honestly, how many of you who believe in global warming own energy stocks through mutual funds?

OV, I respectfully disagree that the two issues are even comparable. I haven’t seen anyone take a case to the Supreme Court over oil industries and climate change. Most folks who agree with climate change do not think that oil and coal need free reign to destroy the environment but are perfectly ok with the use of both oil and coal done responsibly. Many of them would like to see more done on renewable energy sources and research. As for what I have in my 401K, The only portion of it I have control over is the portion I contribute to it but my choices are limited to those funds the company chooses to participate in. The portion they contribute to it they have 100% control.

Sassy: I’ll note that Teva Pharmaceutical and Pfizer offer many other drugs besides the ones in question. They are merely part of a basket of companies bought and sold by a mutual fund. Just as in the case of oil companies, products made by these companies will be used by consumers no matter what.

Unless Hobby Lobby completely avoids mutual funds that hold stock options for its employees, their choices would be extremely limited.

Saying that a company or an individual should avoid pharmaceutical companies in case they manufacture drugs that could cause abortions is like saying that atheists shouldn’t buy from Amazon since they sell Bibles and other religious material.

Obv what bothers me so much about this case is the fact that Hobby Lobby is arguing against the contraceptive mandate. So basically not only do they want to deny contraceptive coverage for their employees but everyone else’s employees too. Do you really believe that someone’s religious beliefs should designate the law for all?

Cap, it’s called a “precedent”. Not to be confused with “President” as Danny has. That’s what SCOTUS rulings imply. If Hobby Lobby is allowed to restrict health care or options on “religious grounds”, it opens the door for other companies to do the same and for even more companies to push the boundaries. You love to utilize the slippery slope defense willy nilly, except when it really applies eh Cap?

Stern the contraceptive mandate is directed to all insurance companies so the cost of additional coverage is spread among all insurance consumers making it affordable for employers to purchase. Hobby Lobby wants the mandate appealed which would make contraceptive coverage not an affordable option for the majority of companies which is why most companies did not provide that coverage in the past. So do you believe it is legal for a company to designate law for all based on religious beliefs?

You mean it might lead to freedom of religion, Bubba? Gasp, the horror.

Intrigued, other insurance companies would simply raise the premiums to cover teh costs. That is how insurance policies work. And again, yes, I believe in freedom of religion. There should be no laws requiring any person or organization to violate their religious beliefs. There should be no laws requiring anybody to buy anything at all.

So Stern you believe the government should not pass any law requiring anyone to do anything whether it violates religious beliefs or not. So I assume you are against gender discrimination laws, child abuse laws, employment laws, etc. So are you an Anarchist?

No, I am not an anarchist. Child abuse, assault, theft, murder, etc., harm another individual. But if you want to discriminate and not shop at Hobby Lobby, that is your business and should not be illegal to refuse to shop there.

Intrigued, My family’s insurance plan covered contraceptives before there was any kind of government mandate for coverage. It makes economic sense for companies to cover contraception since the cost is much less than the expenses associated with pregnancy and medical care of a newborn.

Thus, there really need be no concern that a few individuals and companies opting out of contraceptive coverage would increase insurance costs for the majority. In Hobby Lobby’s case, only a few types of birth control would not be covered. The majority of contraceptives would still be paid for.

The alternative for Hobby Lobby would be to drop insurance coverage for their employees and have them buy insurance on the exchanges. I would guess that the vast majority of Hobby Lobby employees would rather have company paid insurance (with the understanding that certain contraceptives would not be covered) than to buy their insurance on their own.

Is it hypocritical for those who are in favor of gun control to own stock in companies that manufacture semi-automatic weapons through their mutual funds? Should environmentalists shun funds that own stock of car manufactures that produce emissions? Should atheists scan their fund fund portfolios for book publishers who produce Bibles or the Koran?

In Hobby Lobby’s case, they only oppose a few types of contraceptives, so wouldn’t it be a bit harsh to expect them to avoid mutual fund holdings of huge companies like Pfizer that also produce many lifesaving drugs?

CaptSternn says:
April 2, 2014 at 12:48 pm
“So, Intrigued and Bubba, before the democrats passed the PPACA, child abuse was legal, child brides were legal and people we [sic] making human sacrifices on the street corners? Really?”

You didn’t quite understand the meaning of the word “precedent” either did you Cappy?

Obv your reply inspired me to do some additional research as it’s been years since I have had to worry about birth control so I may be a little out of the loop. Apparently in 2000 the EEOC ruled that companies with prescription coverage could not exclude contraception. So naturally I wondered if Hobby Lobby’s insurance prior to the ACA covered the forms of contraception they now suddenly oppose and wouldn’t you know they did. Actually because of the EEOC ruling in 2000 they were not allowed to decide whether or not plan b was on their prescription drug plan. So why didn’t they oppose the ruling in 2000?

Sorry to butt in Intrigue but the answer is pretty clear. It’s more outrageous when the Black guy tells you to do it.

Just like when the Republican Congressman Fred Upton co-sponsored the bill phasing out incandescent bulbs under the George W. Bush administration and when Obama publicly supported that initiative, promptly voted (but failed) to repeal that initiative.

Sorry Intrigue I would have liked to believe that also but life experiences prove otherwise. I could tell you some (sadly) wild stories you wouldn’t have believed if you didn’t witness it first hand and I’m not even Black. My wife who is White thought I was paranoid until she witnessed an incident first hand (when the offender mistakenly presumed she wasn’t with me because she was White).

Since the blog posting has brought out the abortion debate, contraceptive and such, just thought I would post this. It seems that some think that the ACA will come between you and your doctor, turns out it is the corporations that are between you and your doctor.

There are 11 planned parenthood and assorted other women’s health care outlets (including Catholic Charities) in the Bartlesville/Tulsa area that will provide whatever is needed in regards to birth control.

Bartlesville has one hospital – this one. The original Bartlesville newspaper article claimed that there is only one Ob-Gyn in the area that is not affiliated with the hospital. Tulsa is 50 miles away. Why in the hell should a corporation (though a non-profit, Ascension Health had revenues of $16 billion last year) be allowed to bar affiliated physicians from treating patients with legal and nearly universally accepted procedures? If your morals prevent you from putting the patient’s needs first, then maybe you need a new line of work.

This is why I think eventually the decisions around corporations and ‘religious freedom’ will change, regardless of how the current controversies are decided.

Corporations are ‘persons’, a legal fiction, for the primary purpose of shielding the remaining assets of the investor from liability for the acts of the corporation. That is why the decision that corporations have ‘free speech’, because a corp spending its money as it wants on advertising in political realms can be a business purpose and the investor shouldn’t be liable for personal losses. Why do corporations require the legal fiction for the consciences of the investor? It invites folly that has nothing to do with commerce or investments.

Crogged, corporate personhood is used by the courts to explain that the federal government is not granted the authority by the constitution to censor or otherwise infringe on liberty and rights, be that an individual, group, organzation or company. It dates back to the 1800s.

Corporations are not people and will not be until the people in them are all held responsible for their crimes. When corporations (people) are thrown in jail for crimes then they can claim that. Right now the CEO, etc. are insulated from prison for wrong deeds done by the corporation and that is wrong.

DanMan, the insurance companies have always told its subscribers who they may see with in their network, specificity , Doctors outside the “network” must be approved . They are between you and your doctor of choice.

That would be false, Texan. Insurance companies cannot tell you what doctor you can or cannot see. Their level of coverage will vary, they might only cover 50% instead of 80%, but that is still your choice. It was also your choice on what insurance company and policy you would choose, if any at all. Democrats took that freedom away from all of us. Freedom is the enemy of the left.

Once the government does take over the health care system, it will have the power to dictate what doctor you see and what care you will get. You can look to places like Canada, the U.K. and other socialised systems for examples.

I’ve had the same doctor for at least 20 years. So far he has not been accepted on any Obamacare plan but so far I am exempt from having my policy cancelled. We’ll see what happens next year when your precedent decides how he’s going to apply his shiny new law.

Ht, you claim taht freedoms are not lost, except that they are, then you scoff and suggest those freedoms shouldn’t have existed in the first place. By the way, you forgot to add that we are no longer free to choose our health insurance plan, or to choose none at all. Then again, you didn’t value freedom to begin with.

John, you mean to say that Catholics will not support birth control/contraceptives? Well, it is against their doctrine. Looks like the doctor in the area that is not associated with the Catholic Church will be doing a lot more business.

Sternn, they aren’t running a church, they’re running a business, a legal corporation. They should be held to the same legal standards as everyone else. Why is health care coverage any different? If they are given an opt-out for certain laws, then where does that stop? Can you have a “religious objection” to paying overtime or providing necessary safety equipment?

Do any of you do any research about the subject, or do y’all just say whatever sounds good at the moment? Corporations are not citizens. Corporate personhood is about the powers of the federal government, equal protection, due process of law, property rights and free speech.

Does the federal government have the power to censor the Houston Chronicle from reporting news? Can the federal government confiscate and nationalize the Houston Chronicle? Does it have the power to confiscate the property of the Houston Chronicle without compensation? Does the federal government have the power to declare the Houston Chronicle guilty of crimes and penalize it without due process, without a trial? Does the federal government have the power to make the Houston Chronicle edorse certain candidates and prohibit it from endorsing others?

If you answer “no” to those questions, you support corporate personhood. If you answer “yes” to those questions, you support socialism/communism and oppose property rights, free speech, equal protection and due process.

Ahhhhhh! Almost time to leave work and got me a six of Black Butte Porter to enjoy in the sun when I get home. 64% here in St Peter, MN, in Houston they would be wearing winter parkas. When it hits above 40 up here, the shorts and T shirts come out. Sorry for going off topic, but for those of us that suffer from SAD, this is a wonderfully glorious time of the year.

Not yet Tutt, but very soon. We signed an earnest money contract on a 100 year old home on an acre and a half in December. Just waiting for the funds from my retirement to pay for it. No mortgage payments!

Good luck in TN. My father lives in TN just outside of Chattanooga. It’s beautiful there. The downside is politics and rabid religiosity but my Dad and step-mother have found some like minded folks. Tons of history especially Civil War stuff. My dad took me through a neighborhood that had Civil War cannons in people’s yards. No one’s ever moved them and now they are landmarks.

GG the area we are moving to is near Gallitan where some of the fiercest battles were fought. We are 15 miles or so from the Kentucky state line and our house is located about center of 7 preserved battle sites. Politics aside, the taxes are much lower there than here and the services paid for by those taxes are actually much better than here. ( 464$ per year on a 2700 sq ft home on an acre and a half compared to 2600$ per year on 1700 sq ft on a city lot.) NO HURRICANES!! reasonable insurance rates.

I had to laugh at the “devil beating his wife” we lived in Florida for a few years when we were kids and that was a regular occurrence there. I don’t remember hearing that since my grandmother told us kids. Thanks for the memory, playing in the rain with wild abandon and waiting for the day the devils wife got even! lol

Yes, my father moved from VA to TN because of the lower taxes. He had a 200-year old farmhouse on 100 acres next to the Shenandoah river that I hated to see sold but it was expensive.

On a side his farm also had a graveyard for the owners and one for the slaves deep in the woods of the property. Pretty weird stumbling on to that while out walking. The East Coast is great for history buffs.

Way, you should do some homework on taxes in Tennessee vs Texas. The state sales tax rate is 7% and food is taxes at 5.5%, Texas is 6.25%, most food items are not taxed. Counties in Tennessee levy a sales tax of up to 9.25% total, where here cities can only levy a 2% sales tax, total of 8.25%. Tennessee has an income tax (Hall tax) of about 6%, Texas has no income tax. Tennessee has a property tax rate of about $3.20 per $100, Texas averages about $1.50 per $100.

Tennessee has no income tax Sternn and the local sales taxes are about average. My property taxes in the state are exempted for disability and age. No charge for Tn Wild Life and Fisheries which means for us hunting and fishing just got a lot cheaper. On most indexes the cost of living there is cheaper than in Texas. There are no MUD taxes or additional fees for fire service and such for living outside an incorporated city. Like Tutt, I tend to live pretty frugally so sales taxes are not a huge issue for me. I have done my due diligence and find that overall it is much cheaper for many more benefits.

I suspect lots of us get off the interstates Cap. I know Jefferson well. Might I suggest you two taking a drive down to Terlingua/Big Bend area? That is beautiful and clean as well. If you get to Terlingua go to La Kiva, a little bar/restaurant built into a cave and, of course, you can’t miss the ghost town.

We can take the good ideas from other places and use them here. I had never been to the Northeast until the early 2000s and drove from outside NYC to near Boston, MA. Just the maintenance of a green belt alongside the interstates hid the fact you were traveling in a mostly densely populated place past some squatty looking metro areas. But back in the day we had the road which went from Bolivar to Sabin Pass–which the State decided was too expensive to maintain because of storms washing it out. If we could have keep the road, but not have any development on it, it would be the most talked about scenic route in Texas. It was beautiful and wild, now you have to get past San Antonio to the west to have any open spaces and nothing at all like that drive.

Yes, but unfortunately there are those who take it as a personal affront if you say anything critical about TX which, let’s face it, is not perfect and has it’s fair share of problems and could be improved with some ideas taken from other cities and states.

I guess I prefer simple, salt-of-the-earth people, like those in East Texas and down 59 close to Victoria. I’m turned off by some of the snooty behavior from people in the wealthier, more touristy parts of the state.

We spent the weekend in Palestine, Tx. I had been through that town a hundred times as a kid on my way to my grandmother’s house. I had never ventured off the highway to see the incredible number of beautiful houses and buildings they have there.

We stayed in a house that was built in 1872. And it must be a pretty polite little burgh as evidenced by an old railroad company hospital, built around 1903 and closed in 1970, that stood lonely against the tracks with almost all of the glass from that era still intact.

Sassy, Green sounds wonderful. Since the landscape in my little corner of NM is mostly golden brown dirt and rock interspersed with the dull green of junipers, I envy you in that respect.

NM has a state income tax and a substantial sales tax. Property taxes are less than those we paid in Texas but don’t make up for the state income tax taken out of my husband’s paycheck. Houses are much more expensive than those in Houston but still cost less than those in nearby Durango.

Food costs more here. Car and home owner’s insurance cost less. Utilities bills are lower. My husband and I are getting used to having swamp coolers instead of central air conditioning and I’m still a little mystified when it comes to our septic system (no problems yet).

We spend much less on gas and car expenses since my husband rides his motorcycle to work 95% of the time.

The scenery as seen from the roads can be breathtaking due to the beautiful rock formations and changes in elevation, but New Mexico has its own problems with trash along the roadways, billboards for casinos, and dilapidated trailer homes. The roads are in poorer condition than those in Texas and most country roads are merely dirt.

Still, I’m enjoying my time here. There’s a sense of openness and freedom. If I need to see some green, Colorado is a short drive away.

Sassy, I hope all goes well with your move to Tennessee. It sounds like a beautiful place to live.

Thanks OV I am soooo looking forward to living in a place that offers seasonable changes. The beautiful colors of fall, the blooming of wild flowers in spring, the greens of summer and the stark whites and greys of winter after a snow.

Tutt, the small town we are moving to has a population of less than 200! I have always loved the sense of community and peace in small towns. Since you and Cap like to travel the back roads of East Texas and you have an infinity for pine forest, you might enjoy the area around Alto. The Davie Crockett National forest is huge and beautiful. In the same area is a couple of really nice State parks, Mission Tejas (Hubby and I spent our honeymoon there camping) and the Caddo Indian Mounds. There are some very beautiful and historic small towns all around there as well.

Texas has been my family’s home since it’s founding and I am somewhat sad to be leaving it but I have as many familial roots in the hills of Tennessee. Texas is the most environmentally diverse state in the country. We have it all here, desert to the west, river deltas in the southeast, hills and mountains to north and huge forests in the central parts of the state.

GG, I had to really laugh at your comment about getting in shape walking those hills! Mike has one leg that is almost an inch shorter than the other, bless his heart he is more than a bit clumsy on level ground but he gets around those hills like a gazelle! He says that’s because he built that way!

Way, we have been to the Davy (David) Crockett Natonal Forest, and the Sam Houston, and the Sabine National Forests. We found Sam Houston’s grave on our second road trip, countless trips since then. Finding that grave set us out on a mission to see much of Texas.

For us, the Alamo is a minor site because of the tourist factor. But we do stay at the Crockett Hotel when we visit San Antonio. I like to look at the Alamo wall when I go for a smoke. Goliad is a much more major site for us (remember Goliad, massacre anniversary just a few days ago).

Washington on the Brazos, been there. Texas Independence trail, done most of it. San Jacinto Monument and tour the battle ground, done that.

I will tell you this, if you want to find deep East Texas and a place where segregation still exists, visit Burkeville. But I warn you, the people there are friendly. They will wave a friendly hello at you as you pass through.

Vidor, Orange, Jasper, Kountze, Bridge City, all basically modern areas and modern cities. Less racist than Houston with Quanell X leading the New Black Panther Party. Go figure.

Stern, I get you are probably just trying to be provocative (or at least I hope that is the case), but if you ever wonder why folks think you might just have a blind eye or two, comments that Vidor and Jasper are less racist than Houston because of a pudgy Black man with a funny tie probably would be the poster child for such thinking.

You might want to ask some folks living in Jasper and Vidor how they feel about racism. It might even help if you could occasionally see racism as something other than victimizing White folks.

Seriously, “Hey, I know you folks in Vidor think you might have some issues, but let me tell you, here in Houston with Quanell X running around, we White folks are the real victims of racism”.

Walk a mile in some other shoes.

I read something a little humorous and a little sad a few days ago, and it kind of resonates here. Someone named Brian Williams writing on some blog somewhere:

“You don’t have to look hard to find a poll or a study that shows how optimistically most white people purport to view the racial situation in America as being. A large majority think racism is a minor issue, at best, and a significant number feel that the election of Obama fundamentally fixed everything forever race related forever…or something like that. Furthermore, a recent poll showed a lot believe blacks are the ones dragging out the issue of racism by talking about it and that reverse racism is actually a bigger issue (Fox News).

The thing that gets me about this is that so many white people seem perfectly content to feel this way while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of black people disagree with them on every single one of these points.”

Buzz…well aware of the quote. Love Stripes and had a massive (and unrequited) crush on PJ Soles (the blonde MP) for many years.

I have very sincerely not met two people in their 40s (and Buzz, I think you’ve suggested you are a bit older than that), who are saying with sincerity that they have not experienced racism unless it was racism directed at Whites.

It is not that I do not believe you, it is simply that I find the claim unbelievable. Man, I just wish everyone could have lived in that world.

Homer, when a segment of our society makes out better to use the victim ‘suit’ why would they change their story? Is it racism that makes people commit major crimes? Is it racism that makes mothers have several children from different fathers with no support at home? Is it racism that keeps individuals from learning and appreciating education?

As long as there are people who believe like you, it won’t change. There are enablers and the enabled.

Captain or I did not say racism wasn’t around, it wasn’t in our circle. The entire country was not drenched in racism. For the record, I started school in 1957. I know there were major institutional issues with race, but I am talking one on one.

It’s a trade off Sternn. You may pay more in taxes but you get beauty, landscapes not littered with ugly billboards and clean roads. If you went there and came back you’d be appalled at how dirty Texas looks.

Not to mention clean fresh air that I can breathe in, creeks so clean you can see the fish swimming in the bottoms. The amazing amount of wild turkey, deer and so many varieties of wild birds. Right now daffodils are blooming everywhere like the blue bonnets in Texas! The only “smog” you see is the mists settling on the hills at sunrise. The silence is usually only broken at night by the howling of coyotes and the turkeys leaving their roosts in the morning.

After a life time of hard work, disappointments and joy this will be my heaven on earth! It has already inspired me to finish my families story and to indulge in my other artistic passions.

Sassy wrote: “After a life time of hard work, disappointments and joy this will be my heaven on earth! It has already inspired me to finish my families story and to indulge in my other artistic passions.”
************************
Good morning, Sassy. What a lovely post to read first thing in the morning! I wish you the best.

By the way, both Cap and I live frugally, which is one reason we get along so well.;)

GG says:
March 31, 2014 at 6:29 pm
” If you went there and came back you’d be appalled at how dirty Texas looks.”

When I drive from Minnesota to Texas I can attest to that. Once you cross over into Texas from Oklahoma it gets nasty. That is what lax or no zoning laws gets you, the first thing you see is a adult store billboard and the store, welcome to Texas.

I have been all over the state of Texas and yes it is a beautiful state, never said it was not. But it does have its ugly side be it billboards and crap built all along the major highways. You may not see it because maybe you have become accustomed to it. Those of us who live in other states that have zoning laws and such notice it right away.

Typical kneejerk reaction from Buzz instead of a more reasonable reply such as “yes, Texas does have it’s share of problems and I really wish the state could get it’s shit together and take care of the ugliness and trash so tourists found it more attractive. I love my state and really wish the best for it.”

Sternn, no one said TX doesn’t have any beauty, it’s just lacking in some areas, and you cannot deny the litter along the highways especially after going out of state and then coming back. It’s tangibly noticeable.

You want to talk about litter along the highway, make the drive from Arizona into California in the Imperial Desert along I-5. There is about 2 solid miles of beer bottles and cans 2 ft thick. I guess the open container laws have an impact.

I love East Texas because of the forests of pine trees (Ah, the Sabine National Forest!) and how it’s not touristy like the Hill Country. It’s nice and secluded, and I prefer dealing with the locals. I love it when Cap and I are out there and we lose internet service.

Sorry, that was not for Dan but Sternn and should have been “your loss”. Sternn if you refuse to take blinders off about Texas than you will forever fail at any improvements. That is piss poor patriotism. A real patriot sees the problems and works to fix them.

I’ll also add that I’ve noticed in general that the Southern states are dirtier in general than others except obviously the larger cities. Maybe poorer infrastructure and just general apathy caused by more poverty?? Anyone?

The overly challenged GG doesn’t get it. When someone says our state is nasty, that is a very harsh rebuke and needs to be challenged. First off, GG and Texan implies their states do not have a>litter along the roads and b>no billboards. Well, we all know it is not true but yet they hang their hat on it. Then GG doubles down and blames the South and possibly poverty. Now poor people can not only figure out how to get an ID, they don’t know what a trash can is. Keep digging GG

Dan, is that possibly a route used by illegal immigrants coming in?? I saw some pics once of trails they use and they had dirty diapers and all kinds of litter. It was awful but they are from a countries with no trash service so they don’t know any better.

Indeed, Tutt. That drive from the Louisiana border to Nacogdoches along Highway 7 was very scenic. Maybe some of these people leaving comments about Texas just never leave the interstates? We will have to get back to Jefferson soon as well. That was a cool little place.

Stories of racial strife aside, I will say I might be a bit leery of moving into any town too far from a major highway, a town that is so insulated and isolated that any newcomers are looked upon with suspicion. We’ve gone into Dairy Queens in East Texas where Blacks and Whites will be sitting at the same table, and they look at us, like, who are you, and what are you doing here?

it’s interstate 5 GG, of course illegals use it. But I don’t blame the illegals for the trash, the locals say it started when California went draconian on open carry laws years ago. Nobody has ever bothered to clean it up.

We have been through Vidor and took a side trip into Orange, GG. Nice little places. We found a nice place to eat in the area called Gary’s. Friendly people and good food. Kind of avoid Bridge City though. Went over that bridge once, and once was enough.

I’ll argue about Vidor being nice. Lots of Klan around there. I think as recently as the 90’s there was racial strife. I avoid at all costs and if I have to I go through as fast as I can and I’m a little white blonde woman LOL.

I guess it is too much to ask that the interstates leading into Texas look good. Did you Cap and Tutt stop at that wonderfully beautiful adult book store with the big billboard on I-35 as you crossed the border? It looks so inviting to to tourist . I love Texas, but I guess I am supposed to not want it cleaned up a little. Kind of like Chris loves the GOP, but is not supposed to try and make the party better.

I guess I prefer simple, salt-of-the-earth people, like those in East Texas and down 59 close to Victoria. I’m turned off by some of the snooty behavior from people in the wealthier, more touristy parts of the state.

Texan, we see all kinds of businesses on our road trips. We prefer an antiques shop or local grill over an adult bookstore any day, but I like how any and all businesses are allowed to flourish in these areas. To each his own. Do you support dry counties, too?

We ddin’t cross the border on an interstate, Texan. But we often do when going east on I-10. First thing we see are the casinos. Don’t really think anything of them.

Tutt brings up the dry counties in Texas. We always know when we are entering and leaving one as there are serveral liquor stores just across the county line. Texarkana was funny that way, Bowie being a dry county. Take a drive down State-Line road and there are several liquor stores on the Arkansas side. The tattoo shops were on the Texas side.. Get drunk in Arkansas and cross the road to get a tattoo in Texas. 🙂

Seriously, my grandmother lives in San Angelo (boring, boring town) which used to be totally dry. Then they started allowing beer and wine but still no hard stuff but as soon as you cross the county line you’re bombarded by liquor stores and business is booming.

I have nothing against adult book stores but it would be nice if they were a bit more discreet. Nothing like picking up visitors at the airport and seeing the billboards for “XXX, ALL NUDE, 24 HOURS” to set a nice example for guests. Houston does have a rep for being a bit trashy.

Here is a conversation between GG and Texan: GG says:
March 31, 2014 at 6:29 pm
” If you went there and came back you’d be appalled at how dirty Texas looks.”

When I drive from Minnesota to Texas I can attest to that. Once you cross over into Texas from Oklahoma it gets nasty.

Now I know GG loves to paint ME as the bad guy, which really doesn’t bother me, but it seems the two generalized the whole state of Texas using the word nasty. I suggest you moderate your broad strokes and say what you mean. If you say there is a billboard advertising an adult bookstore as soon as you enter Texas which isn’t really an inviting sight, that would be one thing but you chose the broad stroke.

Buzz, it could be that you are just looking to be outraged about something in order to snipe and gripe. Be careful about who you accuse of using a broad brush since you consider everyone to be a “leftist” who doesn’t follow your line of thinking lockstep.

GG, I don’t drink much myself, except for the occasional beer or glass of wine with a meal, but I also think dry counties are an abomination. I don’t like restrictions on what can be sold. Plus, Cap has to have his mint juleps. 🙂

man talk about adult book stores…we listened to ‘Bobby and Jackie’ on CD while on our trip. Man o man them Kennedy boys were tough on the ladies weren’t they? That book chronicles some crazy stuff about that dysfunctional family. 11 kids by Joe and Rose

Did y’all know the whole Camelot deal was concocted by Jackie in the 3 days between the shooting and the burial of JFK? JFK made Clenis look like a schoolboy when it came to the war on wimmin thing.

Elsewhere on this thread I was reading the comments accusing Cap of being a racist denier. He grew up in a small community just outside Houston with a healthy mix of White, Black, and Hispanic, where everyone knew each other, grew up together, went to school together, worked together, and got along for the most part, so it’s probably true that he didn’t witness any racial tension until he was older and saw more of the world.

Tutt (and Stern)…it is not that it is so hard to believe Stern grew up in such a nice environment.

I think the issue is more the lack of acknowledgement that his experience wasn’t the norm. As someone who grew up in the 70s, to say, “You know, the first time I ever saw racism was when I was an adult and some Black and Hispanics folks were mean to me because I was White” just rings somewhat tone deaf to the world around him.

A simple, “I was really fortunate where I was growing up. We did not have the racial tensions that were being felt in other parts of the country, so it was shocking to me when I got into the military and saw…”

No doubt, there are those on the left that see racism where it doesn’t exist, but the contorting that has to go on with with Stern, Buzz, and a few others to always (or very, very nearly always) say, “nope, that isn’t racism” when faced with some really obvious issues is mind boggling at times.

HT, again, I know there was and still is racism in the world, even in the states. I read about it in history books and saw some of it on TV on the news. I didn’t grow up with it around, and I really don’t believe this whole thing about being anti-abortion is an extension of racist views. Knowing the history of the racist views of people like the founder of Planned Parenthood, it seems to me that the pro-choice side is the extension of racist views and policies.

No, Intrigued, I do not make that claim. From my point of view, the left harbors the racist views that “minorities” are less capable and/or intelligent than white people. They need help from white people just to make it in this world.

Homer, ease up Frances. I grew up just outside Philadelphia. My school was integrated and we didn’t even know it. It just was. We all got along. All races and cultures. One of my friends in my area was from Egypt which I thought exotic but didn’t think race or color. Blacks and Puerto Ricans had their own neighborhoods, but so did the Italians, Czech’s, Polish, German, etc. It was set up that way by our grandparents that tended to stay around their own language/culture.

Why I think you and others saw racism is probably you had very racist relatives and friends of relatives. Now that you can’t even acknowledge that some haven’t witnessed racism says a lot.

Yes, the first real racism I encountered was in the military. The majority of the soldiers stationed in Germany were black, some 80% I think it was. Individually most were just people and got along with everybody else (there were some exceptions), but in groups that ugly said came out.

As Tutt pointed out, I grew up in a small town where everybody just got along. That is how I was raised and the environment I was raised in.

Buzz, I may be reading your statement incorrectly, but I believe you are past the age of 18, and if you can say you haven’t witnessed any racism, then you clearly are not looking around.

Aside from that, I just don’t get the need for the negativity from you. I can have 75 back-and-forths with folks here on the same topic, and it doesn’t have to get mean or snippy. With you, I’m ignorant, “Frances”, or any number of other things. I get it occasionally, and there are dozens and dozens of times when I cannot help myself from saying something snarky, but dude, with you, it just seems like it is every freakin’ time.

Buzz…well aware of the quote. Love Stripes and had a massive (and unrequited) crush on PJ Soles (the blonde MP) for many years.

I have very sincerely not met two people in their 40s (and Buzz, I think you’ve suggested you are a bit older than that), who are saying with sincerity that they have not experienced racism unless it was racism directed at Whites.

It is not that I do not believe you, it is simply that I find the claim unbelievable. Man, I just wish everyone could have lived in that world.

http://www.christianrevolution.net/studyRender.php?studyID=48 Not sure his “Conclusion” that a fetus is NOT a living soul based on not receiving the death penalty isn’t a leap. Why would harming the unborn be a crime then? I can’t see Reagan’s signing a Bill he later regretted or Goldwater’s position being representative of Evangelicals’ views as logical either though. Interesting that the pro Abortion folks rarely address the fact that while African-Americans make up approximately 12% of the US population (and steadily declining), they have had over 35% of the abortions since Roe v Wade (before abortions stats were prevented from being kept, that is). http://www.nbccongress.org/features/abortion_silent_no_more_01.asp
Wonder why?

I just love when you wander in. If you didn’t exist, we would have to invent you.

I think pro-choice folks are very talkative about the disproportionate number of minority women having abortions. You will hear plenty of talk about increasing contraception education and availability into poorer communities, and in the US in 2014, poorer communities also tend to be disproportionately minority.

You have an interesting take on the Black population in the US. Since the 1930s, the percentage of Black folks in the US has been steadily increasing. I am curious from where you are getting your data.

Houston-stay-at-Homer says:
March 31, 2014 at 12:10 pm
“I am curious from where you [bart-1/seriouscynic/usincrisis] are getting your data.”

If anyone is familiar with bart’s “fact” gathering, it is usually from his least expected bodily orifice. When he isn’t misreading his own source data.

Hey bart, how was that Obama vote for the war in Afghanistan in 2001 you claimed he made…as an Illinois STATE Senator?

How about that “famous” quote from Alexander “Tyler” [sic] whom you can’t even spell his name correctly which snopes debunked.

And bart, what is 9 billion divided by 30 million? It ain’t 300,000 as you had posted on two separate blogs.

And then there is your “stellar” pronouncement of “fact” that the US lost 1.9 million jobs in 2011 when your own source stated the exact opposite and in actuality that many jobs were ADDED in 2011?

And the ultimate bart “intelligence” test and reading comprehension classic, when you tried to corroborate someone else’s wingnut rant article with a word for word IDENTICAL VERBATIM article written under a different anonymous pseudonym which further proves your reading comprehension problems when you can’t even tell when you have read the EXACT same article down to the last word, TWICE.

Oh yeah, Houston is correct and you’re not bart. Surprise. Not. Census numbers show both overall Black population increases in total count for every census since 1610 and as a percentage of the US population since 1930. As Houston noted.

Interesting theory, Chris. Although politics certainly have been driven on the right by the right-to-life movement, I would suggest that such politics are merely the surface expression of a deeper societal trend.

Roe vs. Wade was a product of the women’s liberation movement, which began to gather steam in the ’60’s. At the same time, technology was beginning to affect traditional views on the humanity of the unborn. In 1965 LIFE magazine published a series of astonishing photos by Lennart Nilsson documenting the development of the human embryo (http://life.time.com/culture/drama-of-life-before-birth-landmark-work-five-decades-later). Nilsson’s work spawned a new genre, and a host of publications and documentaries on the topic followed. Among my favorites are NOVA’s The Miracle of Life (1983) and it’s sequel, Life’s Greatest Miracle (2001). These publications and documentaries had a profound impact on how we view the unborn child; this impact was felt by the general public, and particularly by those of a religious bent. The human embryo was no longer viewed as being solely of one flesh with the mother, but was recognized as a separate individual. Essentially, the women’s liberation movement and the right-to-life movement gestated (pardon the pun) at the same time.

Progressives generally profess to care deeply about the least among us. Hence, progressives have championed the rights of the powerless and downtrodden, including blacks bludgeoned by generations of Jim Crow, and women relegated to second class citizenship by a (formerly) male-dominated society. As comments by many in this venue suggest, many on the left feel these battles have yet to be won, and continue to agitate vociferously for women’s and minority rights. (I, on the other hand, believe these victories are “won;” it’s all over except for consolidation and mop up operations.)

And yet, who is more voiceless than the unborn child? Who is more powerless than an unborn child? Whose right’s are more restricted than those of an unborn child? I firmly believe that as women’s rights become fully ingrained in our society, the progressive left will discover a new darling in need of a champion: the unborn. I expect that in the decades to come we’ll see ever increasing restrictions on the practice of abortion, and that victory charge will ultimately be led by the progressive left. Mark my words.

Interesting take on the advances of information regarding fetal development (and echoed by Buzz below). Interesting that most of the pictures you reference were posed pictures after an abortion.

My experience was a bit opposite. I’ve been pro-choice probably since college, so it is not as though my experience changed my mindset as much as it strengthened it.

Over the course of a miscarriage with one pregnancy and a pretty serious congenital defect with one of our twins, I have learned more about fetal development in the last three years than I ever cared to know.

Everything I learned made me more and more comfortable with being pro-choice, until fetal viability (a point that is not consistent from one fetus to the next and a point best defined by a doctor rather than by a politician).

I do not think you are completely stretching with increases in restrictions on abortion. Significantly ramp up contraceptive education and availability, get rid of restrictions on abortion in the first trimester, and make provisions for the health of the mother and viability of the fetus after the first trimester. With that, you could get most of the pro-choice progressives lined up with strong restrictions on abortion after 12 weeks.

It will take a push from the left to get the right to agree with those provisions.

HH, I’m not so sure the mainstream right and left are as far apart on your suggested provisions as you might think. I, for one, agree with them. I doubt I’m alone.

Although I believe human life starts at conception, I feel the life of the mother must take precedence over the life of the child at any stage of pregnancy. After the date of fetal viability is reached, every attempt should be made to deliver the child, but not at the expense of the mother’s life.

Regardless of my religious beliefs, our society and government is founded on the concept of individual liberty. That means that I should not feel free to force my religious beliefs on others through the coerce might of the state. Hence, those who do not share my views should be free to practice abortion at any time prior to fetal viability. Note your proposed first post-first trimester ban is actually more restrictive than this. (And gee, wouldn’t it be nice if the left were willing to recognize my 2nd Amendment liberties in the same fashion I am ready to respect the left’s desire for reproductive freedom? LOL. Not gonna happen!)

With respect to fetal viability, it will be interesting to observe what occurs as that date gets pushed inexorably closer and closer to conception. My daughter-in-law is a PICU nurse; she cares for infants that would have no chance for survival with the technology of even just a few decades ago.

I’m generally in agreement that many folks (just not necessarily the most vocal folks) are close together when it comes to abortion restrictions. Most pro-choice folks here on this blog happily will discuss rational restrictions with sufficient provisions for the life of the mother and health of the fetus.

The 12 week period is completely arbitrary, but it makes folks feel better to say, “during the first trimester”. Fetal viability makes much more sense.

I think the sticking point will be public funding of abortions. Given a ban after 12 weeks and that many woman don’t find out they are pregnant for several weeks, there are plenty of poor folks who would need more than a few weeks to raise the necessary funds for an abortion.

Technology will certainly push fetal viability earlier and earlier. We spent about five weeks in NICU, and the vast majority of those babies would not have survived 20 years ago. Many of the babies that were in NICU 20 years ago would be going home within a week if they were born today.

As an aside, there are at least a few small fundamental differences between your 2nd amendment rights and the rights of a woman to control her body. However, I am fully 100% supportive of your right to remove any gun that is lodged inside your body, in your uterus or otherwise, and I will even support tax-payer funding for such a procedure if you are not able to fund it yourself.

Leaving the abortion topic aside, HH, since it seems we are largely in agreement, let’s divert to your aside. You have no doubt noted that recent polls trash the executive branch and both parties. Dems and Republicans alike enjoy quoting such polls, intent on pointing out the speck in the other side’s eye. Both parties are seemingly oblivious to the most telling statistic in such polls, namely, that roughly three quarters of us think the country’s headed in the wrong direction.

What’s really going on is that both parties have very serious liberty disconnects, and that’s a bad situation for a nation founded on liberty. The Bill of Rights was not originally included in the Constitution because most at the time felt it was unnecessary; the Bill of Rights simply codified natural, God-given rights that precede any man-made law. Fortunately, the proponents of the Bill of Rights had the prescience to fear that we might lose track of such things. How right they were.

The natural rights codified in the Bill of Rights are simple, and few in number. Under Locke’s “law of reason,” we are free to exercise them as we please, as long as we don’t harm our neighbors, or offend our Creator, while doing so. Indeed, the sole legitimate purpose of government is restrain those very knuckleheads who refuse to conform to Locke’s law of reason. I’ll try to express these simple, natural rights in modern language:

1) We all have a right to free association and freedom in our persons. This means that we are free to live where we want and how we want, to love whom we want, and to live with whom we want. It means we are free to conduct our own affairs, to enter into contracts as we please and with whom we please. You will note that both parties espouse political positions that egregiously infringe on the natural right to free association; both parties have a free association liberty disconnect.

2) Implicit in the right of free association is that we all have a right to freedom of expression. This applies to the practice and expression of both religion and political speech. Again, both parties suffer severe liberty disconnects with respect to free expression.

3) Free association and free expression are meaningless without the most basic natural right of all, the right to be secure in your person and in your possessions. All organisms naturally exercise the right to self defense when attacked; humans have been no different since the dawn of time. Our possessions, crafted by the work of our hands and the sweat of our brow, are extensions of ourselves, and subject to the same right to defense. We generally associate the left with attacks on the right to self defense, but the right is often oblivious to basic notions of privacy that are implicit in being secure in your person and possessions. Again, huge liberty disconnects with both parties.

With respect to item 3), HH, I presume that you keep a fire extinguisher in your home, and possibly your vehicles, as do I. You do this as a form of insurance. Rather than simply trusting that the fire department will take care of you, you have taken a proactive step by obtaining a tool that will allow you to combat a fire that might destroy your property, or even your life, before the fire department can respond. I keep another kind of tool, a firearm, in my home for much the same reason that I keep a fire extinguisher. To address a certain type of rapidly developing and often fatal social interaction, a firearm is sometimes the only viable tool.

So, HH, please think about your natural rights before you think about abridging my natural rights. I promise I’ll try to do the same for you.

I think some folks want guns for some really odd reasons, but some people want fast cars for some really odd reasons too.

I have no urge to prevent you from keeping a firearm in your home for protection. I might, however, question why you need an grenade launcher to protect your loved ones.

Regarding the perception of whether the country is heading in the right direction, that is nothing that a better economy wouldn’t fix rather quickly. Heck, if we just successfully managed a war, those numbers would improve.

There is some really interesting (at least to me) findings in the “country heading in the right direction” statistics. Historically, Blacks and Hispanics provided much lower ratings than White folks on this topic. Those numbers have kind of flipped around, and the flip started before 2008. The optimism of Blacks and Hispanics has increased since Obama, but it started before he became president.

White folks are much less optimistic, and the findings for White folks correlate very nicely with economic conditions over time, except they have not crept up this time as the economy slowly improves. Minorities are more optimistic now, more so than could be attributed to large improvement in the economic conditions for minorities.

The Bill of Rights were already to go, but the founders considered ratification of the constitution by all states before introducing amendments. They delivered it this way. The constitution is the government’s power. The Bill of Rights are the peoples power from the government.

Tracy – I’m fine with anyone who says, “It’s not for me, but I’m not going to legislate my morality on you.” I’m even fine with people who continue to say, “but I’m going to try to convince you to change your mind.” But we both know that the majority of the evangelical community does NOT hold this position. They most certainly want to legislate their morality on this issue.

I think a package of regulations that curtailed abortions after fetal viability except in fairly rare circumstances that would pass muster with most people. But I don’t believe for one second that it would stop there. Emboldened by this victory, I think the most ardent pro-lifers would keep pounding at it, dragging this out to a 5th, 6th, and 7th decade of intransigent political paralysis.

It’s funny that you mention the second amendment. I’d be willing to bet that most people would accept a compromise that curtailed access to the most lethal weapons, the largest magazines, if those restrictions would be it. But the right is concerned about the exact same slippery slope: once I have your AR-17s, I’m going to be coming after your hunting rifles and pistols (which I am not, by the way).

TThor, I can make plenty of arguments agains abortion that have notning to do with religion. All based on the U.S. Constitution, which is not a religious document. There really is no reason to bring religion into the debate on abortion. The left often does it because otherwise they cannot make a valid argument for abortion. Denying an innocent human being their humanity and basic human rights, killing them for convenience, to control crime, to suppress non-whites, treating them as nothing more than property, no real difference from the attitude towards and treatment of blacks during slavery is just wrong.

John, all firearms are equally lethal. Whether it is a single shot zip gun or a rifle or shotgun that holds 10, 20, 30 or even 100 rounds, they are all equally lethal. Dead is dead and murder is murder, doesn’t matter how many rounds, what calibre or even what type of firearm it is. And when we discuss the actual purpose of the right to keep and bear arms, it has nothing at all to do with hunting.

JG, I pretty much agree with you, and while I respect (and agree with) the religious right’s view of abortion, I must part ways with them when it comes to enforcing that view on everybody by force of law – that’s the point at which social conservatives step over into Taliban territory, and I won’t go there.

BTW, my AR-style rifle *IS* my hunting rifle. The AR platform is, dollar for dollar, the most accurate rifle platform ever devised, and it allows me to place shots with great precision. I.e., it affords me the ability to kill as humanely as possible, and that’s the aim of just about any ethical hunter. So, uh, yeah, your fellow travelers *are* coming after my hunting rifle.

Interestingly, it would appear that every generation adopts the military rifle of its time for sporting purposes. The bolt-action Springfield was the primary military infantry arm from WWI into WWII; young men coming home from those conflicts adopted bolt-action rifles for hunting purposes. Similarly, young men coming home from the recent conflicts in the Gulf region are gravitating towards the AR platform for hunting. The young guys at the deer camp predominantly shoot AR-type rifles. Once I learned how accurate they could be, I jumped on that wagon, too.

Cap, the constitutional argument is predicated on the notion that human life begins at conception. I happen to agree with that idea, and I can readily advance both scientific and religious arguments to support it. However, there are many (e.g. Owl) who vehemently disagree, and insist that an early-stage fetus is nothing more than a scrap of flesh parasitically embedded in a woman’s uterus. Although I find this view utterly repugnant and morally reprehensible, I have learned that even my most vaunted rhetorical skills are insufficient to the task of changing their minds. I’m not willing to turn those who hold such views into felons simply because I think they’re dead wrong.

I’d rather agree on what we can agree on, and keep on working to develop more convincing arguments and evidence over time. Meanwhile, if we are to remain a free country, we’re just going to have to learn to accommodate each other. Owl (or her descendants, assuming she doesn’t flush them prior to birth) will come around in the fullness of time.

Sternn, we have had this argument before. We, as a country, have accepted limits on the right to bear arms. Lots of them. Individuals cannot own anti-aircraft missiles, anti-personnel mines, or tactical nuclear weapons. There are severe restrictions on owning some types of automatic weapons and there have been for decades. The question about where those lines are to be drawn is a legitimate one, and those lines have nothing to do with your invented fantasy about well armed infantrymen.

No, John, we as a country have not decided any such thing. We, as a country, have not rejected the U.S. Constitution. The left has done that, and continues to do that, and rejecting individual liberty and rights. According to you, we, as a country, reject the ideas of the leftists. We reject the destruction of individual liberty and rights.

It’s only a child or baby after it’s born. Satisfying both groups is easy, no abortions, simply allow C-section to deliver a baby anywhere from 0-9 months premature, with the state set up as the ward upon birth and paying all the bills of the then ward of the state. Viability will determine the rest.

tthor, if that is the case, that progressives historically tend to defend the rights of the powerless, and by extension, conservatives would tend to defend the rights of the powerFUL, how would you explain the Right’s defense of the unborn child? Is this nothing more than a fluke? Is defending the rights of the unborn merely a disguise for continuing to protect the powerful?

Tuttabella, I wrote that the left “professes” to care for the least among us; that’s not to imply the right has no concern for the same. Indeed, far from it. Conservatives generally are loathe to tamper with the social status quo, and while that might tend to favor those in power, it also implies support for long standing social institutions such as the Church. While the Church occasionally strays, at it’s core it is truly founded on caring for the least among us. So there is no disconnect, and no reason to be credulous of conservative support for the right to life.

On the other hand, a cynic might be inclined to note that the left really only cares about political power, that “protection” for the least of us comes at the price of ongoing dependency, and will only be afforded to those who might actually cast a vote. Women vote; embryos don’t. A cynic would instruct you to do the math. Thank goodness, I’m no cynic.

On the other hand, a cynic might be inclined to note that the right really only cares about political power, that “protection” of the status quo comes at the price of ongoing favoritism of those with wealth and power, and will only be afforded to those who might actually benefit from such favoritism and cast a vote. Older White folks vote in huge numbers; younger darker folks don’t. A cynic would instruct you to do the math. Thank goodness, I’m no cynic.

Speaking of cynics (myself) I turn to those who can speak from language and experience about ‘progress’ and self congratulating ourselves on its depth. It’s a funny thing, I’m no longer a church goer and yet can’t help but consider the larger observations inherent in our inability to conceive of the beauty of life absent breathtaking 3d photography from ancient words. To what extent do we draw upon all the words and blood spilled to tell us what to do, and to what extent do we set everyone free?

28 And why are ye anxious concerning raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29 yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

30 But if God doth so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

31 Be not therefore anxious, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

Crogged, I must admit that I find Coates’ existential angst tedious. Lest you make the standard accusation, be aware that I find Rick Bragg’s existential angst equally tedious; as far as I’m concerned Bragg’s “All Over but the Shoutin'” could have just as easily have been entitled, “All Over but the Whinin’.”

It seems to me that certain elements within our society have elevated victimhood to an art. I’ve no patience for it. Yeah, slavery was bad; Jim Crow was bad; growin’ up in the ‘hood is bad, blah, blah, blah. As if some element has a monopoly on suffering.

For the record, I’m basically 2nd generation white trash, with immigrant grandparents and great grandparents on both sides of the family, and all of them escapees from grinding poverty and/or persecution. Some family members on both sides of the family developed the personal discipline and skills to escape their environment; my parents passed those skills on to me. While I owe them a great debt, I could have just as easily made some of the same awful personal choices as other members of my family. I’m fortunate, but I’m mindful that much of my good fortune is of my own making.

The adventure that is your life ultimately comes down to the choices you make personally. Blaming bad choices on some other person, or on your environment, will not mitigate the consequences of those bad choices. To the extent one rationalizes bad choices, it serves only to prolong the unpleasantness.

Tutt, here’s my take on why the right focuses on the unborn (the powerless): it has virtually nothing to do with the unborn. There is nothing more liberating that giving a woman the power to control her reproduction, which has largely been possible only in the last few decades. She can delay it for her education, keep her family at a manageable (and affordable) size, and does not become tied to non-ideal partners due to stupid mistakes. This is a big break from traditional family systems that are largely patriarchal and this is what they wish to “conserve.”

Conservatives seem to care an awful lot more about other people’s children before they are born than after. If this were about the most powerless amongst us, wouldn’t that be different?

JohnGalt, the only problem I have with your comment is that you’re trying to read other people’s motives. A man who is anti-abortion is not necessarily anti-woman or trying to maintain power. A woman who is anti-abortion is not necessarily a submissive fool or a traitor to her own gender.

John, that is utter and absolute garbage. To protect the rights of others is to be selfish, because doing so is to protect one’s own rights. My rights while I was in the womb were protected in Texas, which is probably why I am alive today. From what little information I have about my natural parents, they seem to have been high school students, probably between 10th and 12th grades. Had I been conceived in today’s environment, I would probably be dead. I give it a 99% chance that I would be dead. I am very happy to not be dead yet.

Being anti-abortion has nothing to do with a woman’s reproductive rights. Contrary to what Lifer and others here claim, we conservatives and protestants are not against birth control and will not be against birth control. Rather the opposite, it is encouraged for both men and women that are not ready to be parents.

However, once a person is conceieved and the woman becomes pregnant, it is no longer about birth control or reproductive rights, she and the man have already reproduced. It is done, a done deal, a new human life, human being, exists. Being anti-abortion means supporting, protecting and defending the rights of all of us at all stages of our lives.

Your claim that we only care about the rights of people before they are born is horse poop. In order to back that claim up, you need to find where anybody that is anti-abortion has called for ending the right to life for innocent people that have already been born, that call for making it legal to kill whomever they please and find inconvenient. I don’t think you can find such a person or argument. I think you are so full of it that your eyes are brown. So go ahead and try to back up that claim. We will all wait, holding our breath.

Dittos Cap! I’m glad you’re not dead yet, too, and I can say the same for myself. Like you, my brother and wife would likely not have ever been born, were they conceived in today’s world. In fact, I wouldn’t be here either; my dad was born a bastard back in the day when the word was more than just a casual epithet, and carried a severe social stigma.

Perhaps instead of outlawing abortion, we ought instead to double down on making it as easy as possible for a young couple who’ve made a “mistake” to bring that new person into the world. Word and deed, my friend. Word and deed.

Words and deeds area good, all well and fine, my old friend. But laws are better. Where would we be today without the 13th amendment? Democrats still owning slaves, saying that if you don’t support slavery, don’t own slaves? Word and deed to counter that?

Thing is, we don’t need a new amendment, we already have the 14th amendment. How that was ever interpreted to say the authors wanted to do away with anti-abortion laws and treat a class of innocent human beings as property escapes me.

I almost certainly benefitted from laws against abortion. What would I be if I just shrugged my shoulders and said it doesn’t matter now, it doesn’t matter if 50 million or more are killed, I got mine and to hell with everybody else?

As I said before, defending the rights of others is a selfish thing to do, because I am defending my own rights, my own life, by doing so. What does that say about those that oppose the rights of others?

Interestingly enough, I am reading a another book titled, “We the Living”. As with other books by the author, the left makes the usual arguments, as does the right. It is strange to read words and meanings and understand how they apply to current issues even though she wrote them many years ago.

Have yet to read Hayek. All in due time. I like to read some light science/fantasy fiction between political books. But from what I have seen here, I won’t be quoting Hayek in the future, even though the Illustrated Road to Serfdom still applies, IMO.

Stern…you are leaving someone out of that equation when talking about rights of the fetus. You have the very real woman and her rights involved, and that does not stop when the egg is fertilized.

How to balance those rights is the question. Roe actually got it pretty close, with early pregnancy leaning towards the woman and then later pregnancy leaning towards the viable fetus.

A belief that life begins at conception is wonderful for you, but to codify that into laws would make for some very unhappy folks. An IUD and even some birth control pills would have to be considered verboten and then you would have to tell a whole boatload of upper-middle class folks that their in vitro fertilization plans just got quashed.

I am always struck by the life begins at conception folks talking a lot about abortion but rarely mentioning the obviously secret work they are doing about the epidemic of miscarriages in this country (dwarfing the number of abortions).

Maybe a miscarriage is a natural thing, but if 25% of all four year olds died of unknown natural causes each year, everything would stop until we figured out why. It would be all we would focus on. Yet, you can visit any anti-choice group, and you will be hard pressed to find the word miscarriage anywhere.

No, they were not. That would have implied that the fetus had legal rights, which it does not. No court has ever ruled this – a fetus is not a person legally. Argue what you want morally, but legally the situation is crystal clear.

You can post emotional hypotheticals, but what actually happened is that the state of Texas impinged on the rights of the only relevant legal entity, the pregnant woman, to determine what is probably the single most intimate decision a person can make, which is when and with whom to reproduce. Had she not wished to do so at that time or with that person, the state forced her to carry this fetus to term, with the potential consequence of serious complications, and undergo a painful and debilitating birth. It forced upon her numerous medical procedures. And this would have been against her will.

You have expressed your horror that the government can make someone buy insurance, which you have described as a slippery slope to totalitarianism (the government could make anyone consume anything!). Yet forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is protecting the legal rights of something that has no rights. This is staggering hypocrisy.

Still wrong, John. Legally, before Roe vs Wade, killing the unborn in Texas was illegal except to save the life of the mother. Legally, since Roe vs Wade, there are people sentenced to life in prison in Texas for killing the unborn. Legally, since Roe vs Wade, there is a man in California sitting on death row in part for killing an unborn child.

And you did not even attempt to back up ypur original claim, that the anti-abortion people want to make it legal to kill people for convenience, or any other reason, after they are born. As usual for the left, you just say what ever you think sounds good at the moment with no care for facts or reality.

Well, HH, we have spent an additional $7,000,000,000,000 since Obama took office that we don’t actually have, so that might have something to do with it. Not to mention that many of the jobs lost during the recession were precisely those high-paying, low skill union jobs that tended to be held by older white guys. The creative destruction of the market is only a force for good when it doesn’t happen to you.

But mostly I think the general crisis of confidence (to borrow a Carter turn of phrase) has a whole lot to do with people being tired of the guv’ment telling them what they must do and what they can’t do. Whether it’s some jackanape in the GOP telling gay people they can’t get married, or some jackbooted DEM would-be gun confiscator telling you that you can’t own a semi-automatic rifle for self defense, people are just sick of it. Let me repeat, just sick of it.

The sad thing is that we bring it on ourselves, thinking we have some prerogative that lets us define how our neighbors are supposed to live. You don’t understand why I might want a grenade launcher for self defense (or for that matter, and more realistically, an AR-style semi-auto rifle)? That’s fine; I don’t care if you don’t understand, nor should I have to. And as long as I don’t harm any other law abiding citizens while playing with my grenade launcher, you shouldn’t care, either. Frankly, it’s none of your business.

TT…you will note that I mentioned “whatever floats your boat” when it comes to guns. I may not understand why you want a grenade launcher, but I really don’t care. As long as you manage to not accidentally blow up some folks, have a ball.

While I do not doubt the sentiment of some folks being tired of the gov’t telling them what to do, I just don’t feel it is the driving force of our current malaise (it must be quote Carter day).

I have no data for it, but my anecdotal discussions with folks just don’t point in that direction. Your discussions with folks are pointing you in that direction.

I think we have generally had a rough decade as a country. 9-11 hit us out of the blue, then two rather mis-managed wars soured folks on America kicking ass and taking names, then a big old recession hit. All of that was happening at a time of unprecedented changes across the planet.

We are still the world’s only superpower, but that is a whole lot less meaningful today than it was 20 years ago. Our military power is essentially unusable and our economic power is being threatened by a global economy for which many folks are unprepared.

Old, bigoted people are dying, and the youth are more tolerant and open. We’ll adjust to low-flow toilets and harsh curly lightbulbs.

Your grandkids will have guns, my kids or their friends will be able to get gay married, and Stern will die of old age never having to worry about the blood of patriots and trees and whatnot.

We are in an age of unrelenting negative information and opinion masked as news, with both sides happily blaming the other side for any real or perceived evil in the world.

I would argue that the tiresome drone of that negativity is a more likely cause of our “wrong direction” numbers than is fear of losing guns, restrictions in liberty of having to serve Jews in your restaurant, and SOX compliance hoops through which folks need to jump.

HH, I pretty much agree with you. I suspect we are both of an age, and having lived through the ’60’s and ’70’s, when things were objectively worse in *some* respects than they are now. All this sturm and drang is likely just a passing phase.

I really do believe that the size and intrusiveness of government has more than a little to do with the economic “malaise,” which is quantifiable in real terms. It’s a pendulum sort of thing – government grows because that’s what it does; eventually it gets out of hand and it gets trimmed back a bit; then the private sector gets out of hand, requiring more government intervention, and so on. Lather, rinse, repeat. We’re at the government-heavy end of the pendulum swing at the moment; it’ll swing back.

I’m a big fan of Dan Mitchell (Center for Freedom and Prosperity; Cato Institute), mainly because of his sense of humor, and general good sense. He recently posted an article on the Rahn Curve (http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/canada-the-rahn-curve-and-the-size-of-government/) – a branch of economic theory suggesting there is a “sweet spot” in the relationship between the size of government as a percentage of GDP and economic growth. One suspects we are currently a little past that sweet spot.

I love correlations and percentages. One, did Canada’s economy ‘boom’ because they restrained spending, or did the boom of the economy make restraining government spending easier? What evidence do we have of the latter, other than the very computers and this dang ol internet we are communicating on? And yes, as a ‘percentage’ which is a fraction, if you bloody grow your denominator then your percentage is smaller.

Listen, this argument against “Keynesian” is always based on false concerns that Keynes was about spending all money all the time.

The primary observation of Keynes states that if you have undertaken ALL monetary measures (the ‘zero lower bound’ –the Fed does NOT charge interest on the money it loans banks), that increasing the public spend will not result in massive inflation, insert full stop here.

“Listen, this argument against “Keynesian” is always based on false concerns that Keynes was about spending all money all the time.”

Crogged, you’ve touched exactly on the fatal flaw of Keynesian economics. Much like communism, Keynesian economics works great until you add people. Counter-cyclical spending is wonderful in theory; in practice the same pols who spend during recessions spend even more profligately during boom times.

The cool thing about economic theories, as with any mathematical construct, is that there are an infinite number of internally consistent theories. Unfortunately, only a tiny percentage conform well to observable reality. Keynesian economics is relegated to the first category precisely because it fails to account for the vicissitudes of human nature, and is therefore of little utility in the real world.

Keynes aside, you do have a valid point. If nominal spending is constant, it will naturally reflect a larger percentage of GDP in times of slow economic growth, as compared to times of rapid economic growth. Irregardless, that doesn’t explain the rollover in the Rahn curve. I suspect the Rahn curve has some basis in observable reality. Speaking in P-Chem terms, all reactions result in a net increase in entropy. You can’t have the government take from the people and then spend on their putative behalf without creating some drag on the economy in the process. None of us are as smart as all of us, not even Obama, and that’s the chief flaw with centralized economic planning at any scale; it’s just not as efficient a generator of wealth as free markets.

What I find interesting is the positive slope portion of the Rahn curve, which suggests that some amount government is both necessary and beneficial to economic growth. Locke famously suggested that in a perfect world (his “state of nature”) all people would conform to his law of reason, i.e. we would all choose to exercise our natural rights in ways that would not harm our neighbors. The world is of course not perfect, and so we institute government to restrain and mitigate the actions of those miscreants who will not willingly conform to Locke’s law of reason. (Indeed, this is the sole legitimate purpose of government.) One suspects the positive slope portion of the Rahn curve represents the costs and benefits of doing exactly that.

In August 1990 the Bank of Canada prime rate was 14.55 percent and in December 1999 it was 6.42 percent (it generally fell all decade-but the Bank of Canada has an ‘inflation targeting policy’ which kicks in at certain times). Monetary policy has a significant impact on an economy and to simply point to ‘spending’ and the economy is like talking about dirt and seeds without discussing water with farming.

But I’m not arguing with the proposition that a government can be too big–of course it can. And the fact that Canada restrained spending (and at the same time had a health care system which Americans hate) seems to work against your assertion that all politicians always increase spending outside of inflation.

Crogged, I won’t deny that pols can occasionally reign in spending; it’s just not the norm. The last good example of that in the U.S. occurred during the Clinton administration, with President Clinton working in concert with the Gingrich/Armey-led ‘Contract for America’ Congress. Those budgets were a beautiful thing, and it just goes to show what *can* happen when leaders in both parties are willing to cooperate and manage the federal fisc responsibly.

And here I am pining for the economic policies of a Democrat president. LOL. Oh, well. (Although I did vote for Clinton the first time around. The man had his issues, but economic policy was generally not among them.)

meh, I can refrain from any religious aspect of opposing abortion and easily fall back on the financial. Pro-abortion advocates are responsible for offing over 50 million Americans since Roe was decided. Today, the same folks that brought us that are pretty well aligned with the open borders crowd clamoring for immigrants to provide the labor Americans won’t do.

I suspect many on this board recall picking crops, baling hay, framing houses, doing yard work, cleaning pools, painting, building fences and other menial tasks, for pay mind you, as kids and young adults.

Of course the ploy to open the borders is really an effort to replace the voters the pro abortion advocates need.

That is one of the most ignorant comments I have ever read. First abortion does not really affect the number of children most people want. It may change the timing but if a person wants two kids but latter in life, abortion does not affect the number of children a person wants to raise.

To be an American citizen requires either to follow a legal procedure to become one or can be an American citizen by birthright. What 50 million Americans are you talking about that were either born or naturalized and then offed?

Those persons born or naturalized here are citizens, those that are not born or naturalized but are in the U.S. or its jurisdiction are still persons. The rights of any and all persons shall not be denied or infringed without due process as punishment for a crime, citizen or not.

I had always understood the Moral Majority movement to be simply a backlash against the cultural and sexual revolution of the ’60s, the more extreme version of an overall movement of the pendulum toward the other side, with a dose of racism on the part of some but not the underlying, defining force.

Still, anti-abortion sentiment seems a rather arbitrary or even contradictory result of racism. Wouldn’t the opposite approach have made more sense — become militantly pro-choice and advocate the right of Black ladies to abort their babies — all in the name of freedom, of course, thereby reducing the Black population?

***Still, anti-abortion sentiment seems a rather arbitrary or even contradictory result of racism.***

That’s actually a really good point. Of course, people didn’t change their minds about abortion because Carter threatened their segregated schools. What happened was a power shift. There were always differences of opinion about abortion among, for example, Baptists. What the Moral Majority accomplished was to shift the balance of power among those factions.

The impetus for that power shift was not abortion, but desegregation. But that issue was not going to earn much sympathy. The banner issue, the one on the front of the brochure, had to be something else. It was school prayer, at least initially. And as the alliance with Northern Catholics grew it had to expand to include their signature issue – abortion.

So gradually the official statements from the church shifted to accommodate that internal power shift. And attitudes in the pews shifted with it, though more slowly.

The best point in Bouie’s article is his prediction that this process is going to lead to a situation, in another decade or so, in which evangelicals complete a similar shift on broader contraception rights. And that people ten years from now will be surprised to learn that Baptists once used the pill. I think he’s right about that.

The moment the social conservatives make a substantive dent in the access of American women to contraception of their choice is the moment the movement dies, at least politically. Women, who make up more than half the electorate, have already deserted the GOP in droves. According to Guttmacher, which is the expert on this sort of thing, 99% of women who are sexually active have used contraceptive means and 62% (of childbearing age) use it consistently. They are not going back to barefoot and pregnant and they are not going to vote for those who advocate that.

That’s been my take on it Tutt. I do see it as a way to put the little ladies back in their place. Remember that politician who said “You shut up. Know your role and shut your mouth.”?—-That’s the mindset I see in a lot of these old fart politicians.

GG, that may the case for some in the GOP and/or Tea Party but not for all. Most anti-abortion people I know are simply conscientious objectors – pro-life, not anti-woman. It’s unfair to lump us all together.

It is rather confusing that the left on this board are FOR the government getting involved in birth control but against government getting involved in birth control to pare it down some. Of course you cannot have it both ways.

Also, you can have a house and senate full of social conservatives, but until the SCOTUS changes their position we will continue killing babies.

Quick shout out to you Chris, it has been a loooooong winter, 64 or so today, got steaks burning as I type, I don’t know if the Texas that post here realize what that is like to a Texan living up north. Peace, and hope you are enjoying some warm weather. To shed the longJohns …… words can’t express that.

Steak was good, now ready to start planting. Now time to pick up dog poop, hope that it is hard as Joe Walsh would say.

Never had much luck with carrots, maybe because I plant them too late, will have to get tiller out and see how the ground feels. Got Arugula and other herbs started, might start some lettuce and radish soon they like the early cool spring weather. Will go to the green house and check out some blackberry bushes.

Interesting theory…lots of events occurring around the same time, but certainly something brought the sides together, and then Falwell found a way to make it a force (and make some money at the same time).

Lifer often brings up the race issue with the GOP, and obviously there are plenty of folks here on the right that do not care for his interpretation of things. There are folks that attempt to point to the liberals as the “true racists” and the historical racist Democrats in the South continue to be racist Democrats in the South today.

Putting aside from the accuracy of those interpretations, what is the GOP/Tea Party’s problem with minorities (and women)?

Why are they losing these groups by double digit margins?

Is it all a liberal media conspiracy?
I think some of suggested that minorities are “brainwashed” into voting Democrats?
Is it generational inertia in voting for whom your parents voted?

I believe Stern has argued that the GOP/Tea Party does not need to change its policies in order to pander to minorities.

The TEA Party is mostly made up of average citizens who are loyal voters especially in House of Rep’s districts and some senate seats. The TEA Party people do not have an organization that could do anything for a national run such as president, which is fine because fiscal responsibility is the charge of the House of Reps. Taxed Enough Already. I know you wish it was more complex than that, but it isn’t.

Bad press. The black congressmen that went through a TEA Party gathering saying they were called the N word and spit at, when there was not one video showing that, which in this day and age is impossible.

Women, I disagree with you. The gatherings I attended were probably close to a 50/50 mix. So your statement doesn’t align with the facts.

Homer, my evidence and my conversations with relatives all over the country and viewing pictures of rallies from all over, I stick by my assertion.

I would also add the TEA Party is not trying to ‘attract’ anyone as much as stand up to the runaway government. I would be perfectly fine if there was not a need for the TEA Party but I strongly do and anyone with basic math skills should also.

HT, there is a difference between leaning conservative and being part of the tea party movement. I know of people that have become more conservative and started voting for republicans more often, but don’t claim to be part of the tea party movement. They admit to being influenced by the movement and that draws them to the more conservative ticket even though they don’t feel confortable becoming part of the movement.

They can be the types to see that our movement draws some kooks and extremists, but then the current democrats in general are kooks and extremists and the left acepts that as natural and normal.

HT, I often take Lifer’s posts as his view and being part of the GOP Establishment. He is not part of, and seems to be very much against, the tea party movement. When you say, “GOP/Tea Party”, you are trying to lump two different groups into one. You are basically saying that Lifer is part of the tea party movement. Not sure he appreciates that.

There is the GOP Establishment and then there is the tea party movement. Yes, we are working to infiltrate and change the GOP, but the establishment hates and even fears us, maybe more than democrats do.

All this racism, hatred, bitterness, is coming from the GOP Establishment representative, GOPLifer. He is explaining his views as part of the establishment, the views of the establishment. You probably offend him by suggesting he is part of the tea party movement, and we in the tea party movement don’t want any part of what he is confessing and saying about the GOP Establishment he is part of.

We are working against that sort of stuff in the primaries, though it is a side issue for the movement in general because the movement itself is simply about fiscal responsibility and limited government. We are not single issue voters. We do not all agree on social issues. I am strongly anti-abortion, TThor is not. Well, maybe he is, but he doesn’t want that to be law.

We have no problems with women or “minorities”. We in the tea party movement don’t need to pander to anybody. The left will push them away, and they will start looking more and more at the conservative side of things.

Yes, it seems to be a generational thing, parents and ancestors voted democrats, so people vote for democrats. But you mostly left them alone and it was all distant, didn’t affect them directly. Just ideas. Now democrats are getting all up in their business, in their faces, in their personal lives, micromanaging them. What you try to do “FOR” them, you end up doing “TO” them. They will either leave and join us, or they will stay home.

Cap, it’s interesting that the last option you mention is that “they will stay home.” That’s exactly what I’m becoming more and more inclined to do myself. I’ve become entirely dismissive of all the political parties, of politics in general, especially from witnessing the bickering the goes on. Politics is not about doing what’s best for the nation. It’s nothing more than a game. I just can’t take it seriously anymore. I’ll just continue to do what I’ve always done — no matter which party is running the show, work within the existing system, keep a low profile, abide by the law, play by the rules so as not to draw attention to myself, keep my needs and wants to a minimum so that there’s nothing for anyone to hold over me or put at stake. Count me out.

Stern…until your Tea Party backs a non-GOP candidate (or even a pro-choice candidate) in even a moderately sized election, the Tea Party is simply part of the GOP.

At this point, you are the single most reliable group of voters for the GOP.

I have heard a few thousand times about how much everyone (the GOP, the Democrats, everybody) hates and fears the Tea Party. I don’t know if it makes you feel better to believe that; to believe that you can shake up the world and everyone is worried about it, but today, the Tea Party is a bought and sold part of the GOP.

The Tea Party’s only impact is to try to primary someone by going to the right. Other than that, you are completely voting GOP.

At worst, the Tea Party stays home, but the Tea Party is not going to vote Democrat.

Homer, we learned our lesson well in 92. We went outside the establishment with Ross Perot. A mistake. This time, we are working within the game that is stacked against anyone from outside the R’s or D’s. I have to say, it is succeeding.

When democrats have to make up lies to label the TEA Party, well then, that says a lot about effectiveness. When most liberals commenters on this site take every opportunity to diminish the TEA Party, that is a sign of the strength. After all, why would you bring it up all the time if we are just a fringe group?

As far as your social concerns, that I could care nothing about. I am for responsible governing.

Tutt, I understand your frustration. I’m not going to stay home, but it is depressing to go to the polls with the attitude of choosing the least bad option. Worse, voting in Texas GOP primaries the choice is the least crazy option.

HT, why would we bother with the Democratic Party? Their platform is so far to the left we have virtually nothing in common with them. That would be like suggesting the Communist Party backing and voting for a GOP candidate. The platform of the Republican Party is better suited to our goals, but republicans rarely follow that platform and act more like the DNC Lite.

The left would love to see us split off and form a third party, that would put them in power by default. As Kabuzz points out, that has already been tried and Clinton became president. It is easier and more efficent to take an existing structure and remodel it. We won’t win every primary or every election when we do win the primary, but at least we keep democrats out and hold the establishmet’s candidate’s feet to the fire.

Or, what you are claiming, HT, is that there is no difference between Lifer and myself. We walk in lock step together on social, political and economic issues. How many more times are you going to say that Lifer is part of the tea party movement, that he never disagrees with the tea party movement?

Chris your blaming whites and desegregation in private schools as the uniting of the evangelicals is very flawed. Just Carter’s order to focus on white church schools is discriminatory in itself. To this day black churches discuss candidates from the pulpit yet never have their exempt status removed.

The actual medical science on abortion is probably the biggest mind changer of all. As medical practitioners learn more and more of the growth of the baby, things will change even more.

Now why are so many democrats wanting the government to get involved in birth control? I thought you wanted the government out of the ‘it is my body’ business?

Thanks, Kabuzz, but you are a little ahead of us. We spent that past couple of nights cooling our heels in Texarkana, some sight-seeing yesterday through Arkansas and Oklahoma. We came back through Louisiana today. Shreveport will probably be added to the list of our future destinations. We are home safe and sound now, the Good Lord watching over us and keeping us safe in our travels.

OV, why is it that those that claim to be fans of science where man-made global warming is concerned (even though it has not been scientifically proven and warming has not happened for over a decade) reject science when it comes to the fact that a unique human life comes to exist at the moment of conception?

For context I thought I would include some information on the history of abortion in America.

This is from an excellent article on the subject written by a person who tries very hard to avoid bias on the subject matter.

” In the United States, abortion laws began to appear in the 1820s, forbidding abortion after the fourth month of pregnancy.

Through the efforts primarily of physicians, the American Medical Association, and legislators, most abortions in the US had been outlawed by 1900.

Illegal abortions were still frequent, though they became less frequent during the reign of the Comstock Law which essentially banned birth control information and devices.”

The Comstock Law

“Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles for Immoral Use”

The Comstock Law, passed in the United States in 1873, was part of a campaign for legislating public morality in the United States.

As its full title (above) implies, the Comstock Law was meant to stop trade in “obscene literature” and “immoral articles.”

In reality, the Comstock Law was targeted not only at obscenity and “dirty books” but at birth control devices and information on such devices, at abortion, and at information on sexuality and on sexually transmitted diseases.

The Comstock Law was widely used to prosecute those who distributed information or devices for birth control. In 1938, in a case involving Margaret Sanger, Judge August Hand lifted the federal ban on birth control, effectively ending use of the Comstock Law to target birth control information and devices.

Links:

History of the Abortion Controversy
More About Abortion
About Prohibition and Temperance
“Comstockery in America”
Margaret Sanger’s 1915 article, denouncing the Comstock Law and its use to suppress Sanger’s writings.

“By 1965, all fifty states banned abortion, with some exceptions which varied by state: to save the life of the mother, in cases of rape or incest, or if the fetus was deformed. Groups like the National Abortion Rights Action League and the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion worked to liberalize anti-abortion laws.”

Clergy Consultation Service

“Founded in 1967, the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion was a network of clergy who referred women to safe (though still illegal) abortions. There were 26 ministers and a rabbi at the founding of the network, and more than a thousand when the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision made the organization unnecessary.

The existence of a group of clergy willing to refer women to abortion services was important primarily for two reasons:

safer abortions: women who consulted with the service could often find more reliable, safer abortion procedures than if they relied on their own informal networks.
ethical statement: the presence of clergy willing to take professional and legal risks to aid women seeking abortions was an ethical statement, important in changing social attitudes towards the legalization of abortion.”

Abortion was pretty much illegal in all states before Roe vs Wade and had been since the middle to late 1800s. I know Lifer tries to blame everything on the evil white people and all because they are white and there was forced bussing. Most often that is simply not the case. The anti-abortion stand didn’t just happen in the late 1900s because of it.

Thanks, Way. We just got back from being on the road all day, so we are putting our feet up and relaxing a bit right now. Three states in one day, lots of little towns and antique stores. Beautiful country up here to see with my beautiful lady.

Totally off topic — not the first time, nor the last — some Texas trivia: I discovered today that SCOTT JOPLIN was a Texan, born in Linden, Texas and raised in Texarkana. Awesome. They need to name a street after him if they haven’t done so already.

As late as 1974, after Roe v. Wade, the Southern Baptists were still lined up with the rest of mainline Protestantism in favor of the expansion of abortion and contraception rights. Roe didn’t seem to affect their feelings on the matter at all. Eight years later they had changed completely.

It seems that something else must have happened in the meantime to begin to shift opinion on both the abortion issue, and more importantly on the question of political activism.

If Roe wasn’t enough to do it, I wonder what that could have been?

I was a kid, but I watched this happen. The anti-abortion folks didn’t start showing up in church until well after Reagan was in office. Sh*t got real when two things happened more or less at the same time in 1978. Jimmy Carter threatened to shut off the reverse underground railroad into the newly created white church schools and a Federal court took direct control of the schools in Beaumont to finally force the district to desegregate.

You make up whatever fantasies you want. I was there. The history happens to back me up because that’s what happened.

Desegregation happened a long time before Reagan became president. Seems you are looking at things 20 years after the fact and suggesting that was the cause. Beaumont isn’t the center of the universe, and I have no idea what happened there in the past.

One thing is that you skipped from the Southern Baptist Convention to including all Southern Baptists. The Baptist Churches don’t work that way. Baptists have no central leadership (if it did, Westboro would not be included). Each individual church is an entity unto itself. There are dozens of Baprtist conventions. Each individual church will pick and choose what conventions it will support, if any at all.

My church does a yearly review at minimum. The deacons will get together and research the platforms of the conventions then makes suggestions about supporting or withdrawing support. The church body will then vote on those suggestions. I am pretty sure my church doesn’t support the SBC because of the platform, but I have not been active there for a while so I can’t be sure of that at this time.

As far back as I can remember, the people of my church have been anti-abortion. I grew up with that in the 1960s and 1970s. There was nothing about private religious schools here, and the public schools I attended were always integrated. There weren’t many kids that were not white, maybe 10% or 15% in my elementary years. There was never any forced bussing here. By middle school the numbers had grown, and by high school they had grown more. (Side note, the only bigotry I saw during my school years was against the yankees moving to the Houston area during the oil boom, race was never an issue.)

***Desegregation happened a long time before Reagan became president. ***

That is incorrect. In most of the South outside of New Orleans, Charlotte and Atlanta, the mandatory portions of the effort didn’t begin in earnest until the Carter administration and they continued into the 90’s. The Voting Rights portion of the effort hadn’t ended when the Supreme Court shut it down last year.

In Beaumont, just as a specific example, court ordered desegregation began in 1978 and ended in 1994. All the way through the eighties the schools were being rebalanced on an annual basis under Federal supervision.

And as of 1974, your denomination was on record as pro-choice – a position that put them at odds with legislation at the time and lined them up nicely with Roe. It seems to have escaped your attention. A few other details might have slipped through.

As for the racial history you remember, I congratulate you on the strangely and uniquely harmonious relations of the remarkable community you were a part of. Your memory lines up well with the recollection of most of the white folk in Selma and Montgomery from time immemorial. If only those outside agitators hadn’t come around stirring up trouble.

“There weren’t many kids who were not white…” I wonder where they were?

HT, maybe I was naive, or maybe it just didn’t exist in my part of East Texas, or maybe I was raised right by my parents.

The first time I really dealt with racism was in the Army. It wasn’t white against black, it was black against white. It wasn’t white against hispanic, it was hispanic against white.

Think of the first time you experienced racism would be the New Black Panthers standing outside a polling place telling the white person that, “Now the blacks will rule” and holding clubs to beat people with. What?

Maybe the military can be compared to prison, races segregate and ally. I admit I did exit the military with a bias, but thankfully got yanked out shortly after coming home.

What is your age? I am 48. What kind of world did you grow up in? If it was a racist world, I am sorry to hear that. Maybe this is why I have no shame in flying the U.S. Flag, or the Texas Flag, or even the Southern Cross.

I know stuff happened under many different flags. There are things we need to be ashamed of, and things we need to be proud of.

You know, there are people today that deny innocent human beings their humanity, basic human rights, treat them as property and kill them for convenience. That is law, it is legal today. How shameful is that? Where is the shame from the people that support that kind of society? How can people be proud to fly a flag that allows, supports, that kind of thing?

I was in the Beaumont school district a few years ahead of Chris and what he says about it is true. However I lived in East Texas for thirteen years after that in the area around and between Orange and Bridge City. My kids went to Orangefield schools and I worked for the district. I can tell you for a fact that the bigotry in Texas in the 70’s and 80’s were not aimed at “yankees” as the closest KKK hall was no further than you could throw a rock anywhere in East Texas.

Stern…I’m 46, and I grew up in a small town in north central Texas. It was/is a moderately diverse town. My parents were not generally well off, and the elementary and middle school in my part of town were probably 50/50 White/minority.

In a 50/50 White/minority school, oddly, there were only 2 minority kids out of 20+ kids in any of the “advanced” classes. The only minority teachers in our high school were coaches. We only had one high school, so there were plenty of minority students, but the classes were strangely segregated. Were it not for sports and the kids in my neighborhood, I could have plowed through high school classes without seeing more than one or two minority students.

We had a restaurant named “Sambo’s” (comparable to Denny’s) on the main road in town through the 70s.

I was the only White kid on my high school basketball team, so I was nicknamed “Spot” for a year until we got a couple other White players. I took some grief as the White dude on the team, but people being mean to me was/is hardly racism.

Did I personally experience racism? I was a well-behaved White kid who was decent at math. Not a lot of racism affecting me. However, it really would be hard to have not seen some of it affecting other folks.

With regard to our now post-racial world, where White folks are more often the victim of racism and the “real racists” are the ones pointing out all the apparently false instances of racism, there seems to be a boatload of data that suggests something fishy is going on.

My fair city of Bellaire is a “fair” city since about 90% of the population is White, with about 1% Black and 8% HIspanic. Interestingly, 55% to 60% of folks pulled over for traffic violations in Bellaire are Black and Hispanic.

Now, obviously, people other than Bellaire residents drive on Bellaire streets, so let’s blow it up to the city of Houston’s population. In Houston, Blacks and Hispanics account for about 37% of drivers. So, unless all of those Black and Hispanic drivers spend an inordinate amount of time on Bellaire streets, the data certainly seem a bit odd.

But hey, maybe Blacks and Hispanics are just speedier and worse drivers than Whites, because racism couldn’t be in play in 2014.

Our friends in NYC managed to conduct a few million “stop and frisks” over the past few years. Something like 50% of the stops were of Black folks, 35% were Latino, and about 10% were White. White people make up about 50% of the NYC population, but only 10% of stop and frisks?

Undoubtedly, more stop and frisks were going on in poorer minority neighborhoods than on the Upper East Side, so it shouldn’t be surprising that more minority folks were stopped.

Interestingly, nothing was found in about 90% of the stop and frisk stops (and Stern, I suspect you would be incredibly against stop and frisk due to constitutionality issues).

Even more interesting, frisking was only to occur when officers suspected the person had a weapon. Shockingly, more Blacks and Hispanics were frisked than Whites. Yet, Whites were more likely to have a weapon.

When we think of the death penalty, if you happen to be a murderer who thinks rationally, you better be sure to kill Black and Hispanic folks rather than White folks if you want to avoid the death penalty.

Killing a White person makes you over three times more likely to be sentenced to death than killing a Black person and over four times more likely to be sentenced to death than killing a Hispanic person.

In cases where only one victim was killed and no other felony was involved, having a White victim makes you over seven times more likely to be sentenced to death than killing a Black person and 11 times more likely to be sentenced to death than killing a Hispanic.

Certainly, data such as this do not tell the full and complete story. However, you will find data like these all over the country. At some point, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, well, you can make some inferences that it is not a Buick.

I have to say, they only commenters who experienced racism first hand are the liberals. Maybe that is because the racist’s were in your families and friends of the families so you did see it first hand.

On Homer’s absolutely ignorant ‘Bellaire police pull over more minorities then whites’ comment. I lived around here a long time. Bellaire Police set up speed traps under bridges to get those people speeding through the U Turn and they set up a speed trap on the frontage road before Beechnut to get the speeders that have to do from 65mph to 35mph. Unless Homer has proof the police let white people go free when they discovered they were white, I say to Homer: Busted.

Buzzy, you do realize that police pull over drivers in situations other than speed traps, don’t you? Homer never claimed any white people were let go from speed traps just for being white, so all your words are just wasted, as they rebut nothing.

Buzz…I think we could turn your comment around and suggest, “the only folks who never see racism are conservatives” and thus it means they turn a blind eye to it.

But hey, you say tomato, I say pizza.

So, there is at least 10 years of traffic data for Bellaire (and Southside Place has almost identical data), and there are some overwhelmingly large differences in the percentage of stops for Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites.

There are at least a couple of explanations for this:
a) White folks are more law abiding drivers to a huge degree
b) Bellaire police might just be targeting minority drivers a bit more than White drivers

You seem to be firmly in the first camp. I might argue that there probably is a healthy dose of both of things things.

There literally is a decade of consistent and stable data on this issue. The samples are huge and the effects are very stable.

You dismiss this by saying you saw speed traps and White folks were pulled over, so the statistics are “busted”. Certainly, plenty of White folks are pulled over. No one ever says White folks don’t get pulled over. However, the number is hugely disproportionate across race groups.

There is nothing “busted” about those data. The data are what they are. You can argue the cause, but the data are large and stable.

Sternn, you’ve officially gone off the deep end. To claim there was no racism in your corner of East Texas, to claim that the first time you experienced it was as the victim in the army, to claim that the only bigotry you saw in Houston was against yankees is beyond naive. It’s ignorant and insulting. This revisionism might sound good to you. To minorities it sounds like a perfect reason to not vote for those who pretend history did not happen. This country has a terrible record of racial relations and it was worst and most persistent amongst white southerners, of which I am one (a 43 year old Atlanta native). Acknowledging that history is not shameful, it is honest.

I am 52, born and raised in Houston, so when you Cap say “(Side note, the only bigotry I saw during my school years was against the yankees moving to the Houston area during the oil boom, race was never an issue.)” does not mean it did not happen.

Hey Buzz…this is going to be lost in the mix of comments, but I was just struck by a memory of something you wrote a few posts ago about you “not hitting first, but will certainly hit back” line of thinking regarding snarky or somewhat mean comments.

I provided a pretty innocuous summary of a pretty well researched finding regarding traffic stops in Bellaire. It is an undisputed conclusion that minorities are pulled over at higher rates than White folks. Even the Bellaire PD recognizes the accuracy of that statement.

No, Bubba. In fact there were many times the person would later apologize to me for having done it. They knew I was from the South and they would try to provoke me, but it never worked, just confused me.

GG, Way claimed there were KKK meeting halls everywhere in East Texas. I grew up here and never saw one, never knew of any. The only time I saw the KKK was on TV or in history books.

My statement was not just a “claim” and can be backed up by Texas history. For someone who claims to be so immersed and well researched on the history I am shocked that you missed this from the official “History of Texas” website.

”

The strategy was especially successful in Texas. With a membership of perhaps as many as 100,000, the Klan used its united voting block to elect state legislators, sheriffs, judges, and other local and state officials. Its greatest success, however, was in securing the election of Earle Bradford Mayfield to the United States Senate in 1922. The following year the Klan established firm control of city governments in Dallas, Fort Worth, and Wichita Falls, and the order probably had a majority in the House of Representatives of the Thirty-eighth Texas Legislature, which met in January. By the end of 1922 the paid membership swelled to as many as 150,000, and Kluxers looked forward to even greater triumphs. The year 1923, however, was the high-water mark for the Klan. Its candidate for governor, Felix D. Robertson, a member of the Dallas Klan, was defeated in 1924 by Ma (Miriam Amanda) Ferguson, and dissension within the organization and growing anti-Klan sentiment combined to weaken its influence greatly. By 1928 the membership had declined to around 2,500, and most prominent supporters had left the fold. During the Great Depression, Klan strength waned even further. The fraternity continued its attack on blacks, Jews, and Catholics, but added New Deal politicians and labor organizers to its list of enemies. In 1939 Evans sold ownership of the Klan to James A. Colescott, a veterinarian from Terre Haute, Indiana, but Colescott was soon forced to dissolve the organization because of problems with back taxes and protests over the Klan’s association with the German-American Bund.

After World War II the Klan became increasingly fragmented. During the civil-rights era of the late 1950s and early 1960s, Klan activity in Texas again increased, but because of new anti-Klan laws and FBI pressure, the organization remained small and politically impotent. Subsequently, the Klan fractured into numerous small cells. Among the largest of the Klan groups are the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and the White Camellia Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, but there are also others, each with its own outlook and agenda and a hatred of competing groups. During the early 1980s the Klan gained new notoriety for its attacks on Vietnamese shrimpers along the Gulf Coast (see SHRIMPING INDUSTRY), and in the early 1990s it was again in the news because of assaults on black residents in Vidor. In the waning years of the twentieth century various Klan groups forged links with skinheads and other neo-Nazis and, despite numerous legal actions, continued to be an irritant in the state.”

Flypusher, here is Homer’s sentence: 55% to 60% of folks pulled over for traffic violations in Bellaire are Black and Hispanic.

Now I have drive through Bellaire for over 35 years. I know to obey the traffic signs and speed limit, as tickets are Bellaire’s few revenue streams. Homer’s stats are not in question, I question if it is racial at all. Bellaire never let’s you go unless maybe if you live in the hood.

Way, I do understand that the KKK was strong in the early 1900s. That was a very long time ago, long before I was born. Why not go back to the 1800s and bring up slavery as a current issue? Maybe the 1500s where the American Indians were being wiped out by disease?

The KKK was nothing after WWII, as even your post states. They were even less by the 1980s, the era Lifer is focused on here. They are now less an element than the New Black Panther Party. The people standing in front of polling places with clubs, trying to intimidate whites, shouting that it was time for the blacks to take over and rule. That was more serious than anything any white supremacist group has done in many decades.

Anyway, the anti-abortion position predates the 1980s by well over 100 years. It is not because of desegregation. In fact, the whole pre-choice thing came about because of racism, wanting to limit births and population of non-whites and reduce crime. If anything, the pro-choice side is based on racist views, not the other way around.

Maybe you missed this part Sternn, ( By the way it usually helpful if you read the entire post)

” During the early 1980s the Klan gained new notoriety for its attacks on Vietnamese shrimpers along the Gulf Coast (see SHRIMPING INDUSTRY), and in the early 1990s it was again in the news because of assaults on black residents in Vidor. In the waning years of the twentieth century various Klan groups forged links with skinheads and other neo-Nazis and, despite numerous legal actions, continued to be an irritant in the state.”

I know this personally to be true because my ex husband was a commercial shrimper at the time of the “shrimp wars” we were questioned by the FBI on numerous occasions about what we might have seen on the water.

Stern…you seem a bit fixated on a pretty lonely group of New Black Panther folks who were clearly doing more intimidating things in one generally minority area of Philly than the KKK and various White supremacist groups do across the country.

A single large Black dude is evidently more serious and intimidating to Whites than the various Klan marches, threatening leaflets left in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods by Klan groups, or the random cross burning in Black neighborhoods (in the last six months rather than in the last decade) are to minority folks.

I think your conclusions regarding the New Black Panthers (who could probably hold their national convention in a moderately-sized Denny’s) versus the Klan might be a “blind eye” issue.

Heck, billboards popping up in minority neighborhoods (and not in White neighborhoods) pointing out the voting fraud is a felony might have intimidated more people than our large Black friend in Philly.

The patriots at various “true the vote” entities that oddly challenged the eligibility status of a disproportionately large number of minority folks compared to White folks probably created more of a hassle for more people than did our large Black friend in Philly.

This does not condone the idiot in Philly. He never should have been doing what he was doing.

Ever heasr of a person named Quanell X, HT? Every time you see him, you are seeing the leader of the New Black Panther Party in Houston. He defends people that kill police officers, than run down innocent women while stealing their cars.

Stern said “maybe I was naive, or maybe it just didn’t exist in my part of East Texas, or maybe I was raised right by my parents. The first time I really dealt with racism was in the Army. It wasn’t white against black, it was black against white. It wasn’t white against hispanic, it was hispanic against white.”

Perhaps your environment was so racist in nature that it was the norm to treat minorities as inferior, thus, you were unable to recognize racist behavior until it was directed towards you. After experiencing it for yourself you should be able to reflect on your past and recognize instances of racist behaviors towards other races. If still to this day all you see is racism directed towards groups you are affiliated with then you obviously do not understand racism.

In Houston. The rest of your comment makes no sense, just a lot of trolling garbage.”

Do you have documented proof of that other than your insultingly racist imagination?

As for “trolling garbage”, I see a pattern from Cap:

He only sees racism directed towards him.

He only sees “trolling garbage” directed towards him.

He only sees the other side as devoid of logic and rationality and a basic grasp of facts.

He knows deep down he is and embodies all of those characteristics and externalizes and deflects and ascribes on others that which he is guilty of to rationalize and absolve himself of any wrongdoing so that he may justify continuing his dysfunctionally warped outlook on “reality”.

The only group, religious or political that have been consistent in their stance on women’s reproductive rights to abortion or contraceptives have been Catholics.

“Every church in Christendom condemned contraception until 1930, when, at its decennial Lambeth Conference, Anglicanism gave permission for the use of contraception in a few cases. Soon all Protestant denominations had adopted the secularist position on contraception. Today not one stands with the Catholic Church to maintain the ancient Christian faith on this issue.

How badly things have decayed may be seen by comparing the current state of non-Catholic churches, where most pastors counsel young couples to decide before they are married what form of contraception they will use, with these quotations from the early Church Fathers, who condemned contraception in general as well as particular forms of it, as well as popular contraceptive sex practices that were then common (sterilization, oral contraceptives, coitus interruptus, and orally consummated sex).

Many Protestants, perhaps beginning to see the inevitable connection between contraception and divorce and between contraception and abortion, are now returning to the historic Christian position and rejecting contraceptive sexual practices.”

Just my opinion, but I believe that constant pressure brought to bear on Protestant groups by the Catholic church and it’s influence on Americans politics has much more to do with this swing back to the premise that birth control = bad, many babies = good.